### Ux Review
Works with
description: "Validates a UX spec, HUD design, or interaction pattern library for completeness, accessibility compliance, GDD alignment, and implementation readiness. Produces APPROVED / NEEDS REVISIO
argument-hint: "[file-path or 'all' or 'hud' or 'patterns']"
allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep
AI-first code editor with Composer
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
node --versionux-reviewExecute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
Fetches ux-review from Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios and configures it for Cursor.
The CLI shows a list of agents. Use arrow keys and space to select Cursor:
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Restart Cursor to activate ux-review. Access via /ux-review in your agent's command palette.
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your environment. Always review source, verify the publisher, and test in isolation before production.
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Automate repetitive workflows and reduce manual effort
Example
Generate reports, summarize documents, draft communications
Save 3-5 hours per week on routine tasks
Learn new skills, understand complex topics, get expert guidance
Example
Explain concepts, provide examples, suggest learning resources
Accelerate learning and skill development by 2x
Enhance output quality through reviews, suggestions, and refinements
Example
Review drafts, suggest improvements, catch errors
Improve work quality by 30-40% with less effort
0
total installs
0
this week
10.7K
GitHub stars
0
upvotes
Run in your terminal
0
installs
0
this week
10.7K
stars
| name | ux-review |
| description | "Validates a UX spec, HUD design, or interaction pattern library for completeness, accessibility compliance, GDD alignment, and implementation readiness. Produces APPROVED / NEEDS REVISION / MAJOR REVISION NEEDED verdict with specific gaps." |
| argument-hint | "[file-path or 'all' or 'hud' or 'patterns']" |
| user-invocable | true |
| allowed-tools | Read, Glob, Grep |
| agent | ux-designer |
Validates UX design documents before they enter the implementation pipeline.
Acts as the quality gate between UX Design and Visual Design/Implementation in
the /team-ui pipeline.
Run this skill:
/ux-designui-programmer or art-directorVerdict levels:
/ux-review design/ux/inventory.md): validate
that one documentall: find all files in design/ux/ and validate eachhud: validate design/ux/hud.md specificallypatterns: validate design/ux/interaction-patterns.md specificallyFor all, output a summary table first (file | verdict | primary issue) then
full detail for each.
Before validating any spec, load:
.claude/docs/technical-preferences.md and
extract ## Input & Platform. This is the authoritative source for which input
methods the game supports — use it to drive the Input Method Coverage checks in
Phase 3A, not the spec's own header. If unconfigured, fall back to the spec header.design/accessibility-requirements.md
(if it exists)design/ux/interaction-patterns.md (if
it exists)design/player-journey.md (if it exists) for
context-arrival validationRun all checks against a ux-spec.md-based document.
Player Need Clarity
Completeness of States
Input Method Coverage
Data Architecture
Accessibility
accessibility-requirements.md is matched or exceededGDD Alignment
Pattern Library Consistency
Localization
Acceptance Criteria Quality
Run all checks against a hud-design.md-based document.
design/gdd/systems-index.md with UI category have
representation in HUD (or justified absence)## UX Review: [Document Name]
**Date**: [date]
**Reviewer**: ux-review skill
**Document**: [file path]
**Platform Target**: [from header]
**Accessibility Tier**: [from header or accessibility-requirements.md]
### Completeness: [X/Y sections present]
- [x] Purpose & Player Need
- [ ] States & Variants — MISSING: error state not documented
### Quality Issues: [N found]
1. **[Issue title]** [BLOCKING / ADVISORY]
- What's wrong: [specific description]
- Where: [section name]
- Fix: [specific action to take]
### GDD Alignment: [ALIGNED / GAPS FOUND]
- GDD [name] UI Requirements — [X/Y requirements covered]
- Missing: [list any uncovered GDD requirements]
### Accessibility: [COMPLIANT / GAPS / NON-COMPLIANT]
- Target tier: [tier]
- [list specific accessibility findings]
### Pattern Library: [CONSISTENT / INCONSISTENCIES FOUND]
- [findings]
### Verdict: APPROVED / NEEDS REVISION / MAJOR REVISION NEEDED
**Blocking issues**: [N] — must be resolved before implementation
**Advisory issues**: [N] — recommended but not blocking
[For APPROVED]: This spec is ready for handoff to `/team-ui` Phase 2
(Visual Design).
[For NEEDS REVISION]: Address the [N] blocking issues above, then re-run
`/ux-review`.
[For MAJOR REVISION NEEDED]: The spec has fundamental gaps in [areas].
Recommend returning to `/ux-design` to rework [sections].
This skill is READ-ONLY — it never edits or writes files. It reports findings only.
After delivering the verdict:
/team-ui to begin implementation coordination/ux-design with the
specific sections to reworkNever block the user from proceeding — the verdict is advisory. Document risks, present findings, let the user decide whether to proceed despite concerns. A user who chooses to proceed with a NEEDS REVISION spec takes on the documented risk.
Prerequisites
Time Estimate
15-45 minutes depending on use case complexity
Steps
Common Pitfalls
✓ Do
✗ Don't
💡 Pro Tips
✓ Use when
Use when skill capabilities match your task, clear ROI on time saved, and you can validate outputs. Best for repetitive tasks, learning, and quality improvement.
✗ Avoid when
Avoid when task requires deep expertise you can't validate, involves sensitive decisions, or when learning process is more valuable than speed of completion.
JuliusBrussee/caveman
JuliusBrussee/caveman
whyashthakker/agent-skills-marketing
JuliusBrussee/caveman
whyashthakker/agent-skills-marketing
vercel-labs/skills
Useful defaults in ux-review — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
We added ux-review from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
Registry listing for ux-review matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
ux-review fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
ux-review has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
Keeps context tight: ux-review is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
ux-review is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
ux-review reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
Registry listing for ux-review matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: ux-review is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
showing 1-10 of 50