ux-review▌
Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios · updated Apr 16, 2026
### 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 REVISIO
- ›argument-hint: "[file-path or 'all' or 'hud' or 'patterns']"
- ›allowed-tools: Read, Glob, Grep
Overview
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:
- After completing a UX spec with
/ux-design - Before handing off to
ui-programmerorart-director - Before the Pre-Production to Production gate check (which requires key screens to have reviewed UX specs)
- After major revisions to a UX spec
Verdict levels:
- APPROVED — spec is complete, consistent, and implementation-ready
- NEEDS REVISION — specific gaps found; fix before handoff but not a full redesign
- MAJOR REVISION NEEDED — fundamental issues with scope, player need, or completeness; needs significant rework
Phase 1: Parse Arguments
- Specific file path (e.g.,
/ux-review design/ux/inventory.md): validate that one document all: find all files indesign/ux/and validate eachhud: validatedesign/ux/hud.mdspecificallypatterns: validatedesign/ux/interaction-patterns.mdspecifically- No argument: ask the user which spec to validate
For all, output a summary table first (file | verdict | primary issue) then
full detail for each.
Phase 2: Load Cross-Reference Context
Before validating any spec, load:
- Input & Platform config: Read
.claude/docs/technical-preferences.mdand 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. - The accessibility tier committed to in
design/accessibility-requirements.md(if it exists) - The interaction pattern library at
design/ux/interaction-patterns.md(if it exists) - The GDDs referenced in the spec's header (read their UI Requirements sections)
- The player journey map at
design/player-journey.md(if it exists) for context-arrival validation
Phase 3A: UX Spec Validation Checklist
Run all checks against a ux-spec.md-based document.
Completeness (required sections)
- Document header present with Status, Author, Platform Target
- Purpose & Player Need — has a player-perspective need statement (not developer-perspective)
- Player Context on Arrival — describes player's state and prior activity
- Navigation Position — shows where screen sits in hierarchy
- Entry & Exit Points — all entry sources and exit destinations documented
- Layout Specification — zones defined, component inventory table present
- States & Variants — at minimum: loading, empty/populated, and error states documented
- Interaction Map — covers all target input methods (check platform target in header)
- Data Requirements — every displayed data element has a source system and owner
- Events Fired — every player action has a corresponding event or null explanation
- Transitions & Animations — at least enter/exit transitions specified
- Accessibility Requirements — screen-level requirements present
- Localization Considerations — max character counts for text elements
- Acceptance Criteria — at least 5 specific testable criteria
Quality Checks
Player Need Clarity
- Purpose is written from player perspective, not system/developer perspective
- Player goal on arrival is unambiguous ("The player arrives wanting to ___")
- The player context on arrival is specific (not just "they opened the inventory")
Completeness of States
- Error state is documented (not just happy path)
- Empty state is documented (no data scenario)
- Loading state is documented if the screen fetches async data
- Any state with a timer or auto-dismiss is documented with duration
Input Method Coverage
- If platform includes PC: keyboard-only navigation is fully specified
- If platform includes console/gamepad: d-pad navigation and face button mapping documented
- No interaction requires mouse-like precision on gamepad
- Focus order is defined (Tab order for keyboard, d-pad order for gamepad)
Data Architecture
- No data element has "UI" listed as the owner (UI must not own game state)
- Update frequency is specified for all real-time data (not just "realtime" — what triggers update?)
- Null handling is specified for all data elements (what shows when data is unavailable?)
Accessibility
- Accessibility tier from
accessibility-requirements.mdis matched or exceeded - If Basic tier: no color-only information indicators
- If Standard tier+: focus order documented, text contrast ratios specified
- If Comprehensive tier+: screen reader announcements for key state changes
- Colorblind check: any color-coded elements have non-color alternatives
GDD Alignment
- Every GDD UI Requirement referenced in the header is addressed in this spec
- No UI element displays or modifies game state without a corresponding GDD requirement
- No GDD UI Requirement is missing from this spec (cross-check the referenced GDD sections)
Pattern Library Consistency
- All interactive components reference the pattern library (or note they are new patterns)
- No pattern behavior is re-specified from scratch if it already exists in the pattern library
- Any new patterns invented in this spec are flagged for addition to the pattern library
Localization
- Character limit warnings present for all text-heavy elements
- Any layout-critical text has been flagged for 40% expansion accommodation
Acceptance Criteria Quality
- Criteria are specific enough for a QA tester who hasn't seen the design docs
- Performance criterion present (screen opens within Xms)
- Resolution criterion present
- No criterion requires reading another document to evaluate
Phase 3B: HUD Validation Checklist
Run all checks against a hud-design.md-based document.
Completeness
- HUD Philosophy defined
- Information Architecture table covers ALL systems with UI Requirements in GDDs
- Layout Zones defined with safe zone margins for all target platforms
- Every HUD element has a full specification (zone, visibility trigger, data source, priority)
- HUD States by Gameplay Context covers at minimum: exploration, combat, dialogue/cutscene, paused
- Visual Budget defined (max simultaneous elements, max screen %)
- Platform Adaptation covers all target platforms
- Tuning Knobs present for player-adjustable elements
Quality Checks
- No HUD element covers the center play area without a visibility rule to hide it
- Every information item that exists in any GDD is either in the HUD or explicitly categorized as "hidden/demand"
- All color-coded HUD elements have colorblind variants
- HUD elements in the Feedback & Notification section have queue/priority behavior defined
- Visual Budget compliance: total simultaneous elements is within budget
GDD Alignment
- All systems in
design/gdd/systems-index.mdwith UI category have representation in HUD (or justified absence)
Phase 3C: Pattern Library Validation Checklist
- Pattern catalog index is current (matches actual patterns in document)
- All standard control patterns are specified: button variants, toggle, slider, dropdown, list, grid, modal, dialog, toast, tooltip, progress bar, input field, tab bar, scroll
- All game-specific patterns needed by current UX specs are present
- Each pattern has: When to Use, When NOT to Use, full state specification, accessibility spec, implementation notes
- Animation Standards table present
- Sound Standards table present
- No conflicting behaviors between patterns (e.g., "Back" behavior consistent across all navigation patterns)
Phase 4: Output the Verdict
## 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].
Phase 5: Collaborative Protocol
This skill is READ-ONLY — it never edits or writes files. It reports findings only.
After delivering the verdict:
- For APPROVED: suggest running
/team-uito begin implementation coordination - For NEEDS REVISION: offer to help fix specific gaps ("Would you like me to help draft the missing error state?") — but do not auto-fix; wait for user instruction
- For MAJOR REVISION NEEDED: suggest returning to
/ux-designwith the specific sections to rework
Never 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.
Ratings
4.5★★★★★50 reviews- ★★★★★Pratham Ware· Dec 28, 2024
Useful defaults in ux-review — fewer surprises than typical one-off scripts, and it plays nicely with `npx skills` flows.
- ★★★★★Chen Gupta· Dec 28, 2024
We added ux-review from the explainx registry; install was straightforward and the SKILL.md answered most questions upfront.
- ★★★★★Anika Yang· Dec 24, 2024
Registry listing for ux-review matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
- ★★★★★Camila Bhatia· Dec 24, 2024
ux-review fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
- ★★★★★Sakshi Patil· Nov 19, 2024
ux-review has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
- ★★★★★Zaid Nasser· Nov 19, 2024
Keeps context tight: ux-review is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
- ★★★★★Amelia Okafor· Nov 15, 2024
ux-review is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
- ★★★★★Chen Iyer· Nov 3, 2024
ux-review reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
- ★★★★★Zaid Farah· Oct 22, 2024
Registry listing for ux-review matched our evaluation — installs cleanly and behaves as described in the markdown.
- ★★★★★Chaitanya Patil· Oct 10, 2024
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