critique skill

Critique Skill · 5 维度专家评审

Produce a single-file HTML "design review report" that scores any artifact across 5 dimensions and proposes actionable fixes. Inspired by the huashu-design expert-critique flow.

When to use

landing page) and the user asks "what's wrong with this?" or "review this"

• After the agent (or user) generates an artifact (deck / prototype /

emitting it

• As a self-check loop the agent can run on its own output before

• For comparing two variants of the same design

What you produce

A single self-contained review report including:

Critique skill"), 1-line verdict

1. Header — what artifact was reviewed, date, reviewer ("OD ·

1. Radar chart (inline SVG, no library) showing the 5 scores
2. Five dimension cards, each with:

· 9–10 Exceptional)

• Score 0–10 (with band: 0–4 Broken · 5–6 Functional · 7–8 Strong

• 1-paragraph evidence (cite specific elements / files / lines)
• One Keep / Fix / Quick-win bullet

1. Combined action lists at the bottom:

• Keep — what's working, don't touch
• Fix — P0 / P1 issues that are visually expensive
• Quick wins — 5–15 minute tweaks with disproportionate impact

The 5 dimensions

Each dimension is independent — a deck can be 9/10 on Innovation but

4/10 on Hierarchy and the report should say so plainly. Don't average

away interesting failures.

1. Philosophy consistency · 哲学一致性

Does the artifact pick a clear direction and stick to it through

every micro-decision (chrome / kicker / spacing / accent)?

Evidence to look for:

Kinfolk) or is it three styles in a trench coat?

• Is there one declared design direction (e.g. Monocle / WIRED /

page 3 say "Vol.04 · Spring" and page 7 say "BUT WAIT 🔥"?

• Does the chrome / kicker vocabulary stay in one register, or does

• Are accent / serif / mono used by the same rule throughout?

0–4 Three styles fighting each other. 5–6 One direction but half the elements drift. 7–8 Coherent, occasional drift on edge pages. 9–10 Every element argues for the same thesis.

2. Visual hierarchy · 视觉层级

Can a stranger figure out what to read first, second, third — without

being told?

Evidence to look for:

body / display)?

• Is the largest type clearly the most important thing on each page?
• Do mono / serif / sans roles match the information's role (meta /

tertiary tier?

• Lots of "loud" elements competing? Or a clear primary + secondary +

0–4 Everything shouts. 5–6 Hierarchy works on hero pages but breaks on body. 7–8 Clear tiers, occasional collision. 9–10 Eye moves with zero friction.

3. Detail execution · 细节执行

The 90/10 stuff — alignment, leading, kerning at large sizes, image

framing, foot/chrome polish, edge-case spacing.

Evidence to look for:

• Big-stat pages: does the number sit on a baseline, or float?
• Left/right column tops aligned in grid-2-7-5?
• frame-img + caption proportions consistent across pages?
• Mono labels: same letter-spacing? same uppercase rule?
• Any orphaned causing 1-character lines?

0–4 Visible tape and string. 5–6 Most pages clean, 1–2 ragged. 7–8 Polished, expert eye finds 2–3 misses. 9–10 Magazine-grade — the kind of detail that makes printed-by-hand typographers nod.

4. Functionality · 功能性

Does the artifact work for its intended use? Click targets, nav,

readability at presentation distance, copy-paste-ability for code

blocks, mobile fallback if relevant.

Evidence to look for:

fallback?

• Deck: keyboard / wheel / touch nav all working? Iframe scroll

• Landing: CTA above the fold? Phone number tappable on mobile?
• Runbook: code blocks copyable, mono font, no smart quotes?
• Critical info readable from 4m away (large screen presentation)?

0–4 Visually fine but doesn't accomplish its job. 5–6 Core flow works, edge cases broken. 7–8 Robust through normal use. 9–10 Defensively engineered — handles iframe / fullscreen / paste / print without flinching.

5. Innovation · 创新性

Does this push past the median? Is there one element that makes

people lean in?

Evidence to look for: