--- name: critique description: | Run a 5-dimension expert design review on any HTML artifact in the project — Philosophy / Visual hierarchy / Detail / Functionality / Innovation, each scored 0–10. Outputs a single self-contained HTML report with a radar chart, evidence-backed scores, and three lists: Keep / Fix / Quick-wins. Use when the brief asks for a "design review", "design critique", "5 维度评审", "design audit", or "what's wrong with my design". triggers: - "critique" - "design review" - "design audit" - "5 维度评审" - "5-dim review" - "audit my design" - "review my deck" - "review my landing page" - "评审" - "复盘" od: mode: prototype platform: desktop scenario: design upstream: "https://github.com/alchaincyf/huashu-design" preview: type: html entry: index.html design_system: requires: false example_prompt: "Run a 5-dimension critique on the magazine-web-ppt deck I just generated — score philosophy / hierarchy / detail / function / innovation, give me Keep / Fix / Quick-wins." ---

# 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

- After the agent (or user) generates an artifact (deck / prototype / landing page) and the user asks "what's wrong with this?" or "review this" - As a self-check loop the agent can run on its own output **before** emitting it - For comparing two variants of the same design

## What you produce

A single self-contained `<artifact type="text/html">` review report including:

1. **Header** — what artifact was reviewed, date, reviewer ("OD · Critique skill"), 1-line verdict 2. **Radar chart** (inline SVG, no library) showing the 5 scores 3. **Five dimension cards**, each with: - Score 0–10 (with band: 0–4 *Broken* · 5–6 *Functional* · 7–8 *Strong* · 9–10 *Exceptional*) - 1-paragraph evidence (cite specific elements / files / lines) - One Keep / Fix / Quick-win bullet 4. **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:** - Is there one declared design direction (e.g. Monocle / WIRED / Kinfolk) or is it three styles in a trench coat? - Does the chrome / kicker vocabulary stay in one register, or does page 3 say "Vol.04 · Spring" and page 7 say "BUT WAIT 🔥"? - 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:** - Is the largest type clearly the most important thing on each page? - Do mono / serif / sans roles match the information's *role* (meta / body / display)? - Lots of "loud" elements competing? Or a clear primary + secondary + tertiary tier?

**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 `<br>` 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:** - Deck: keyboard / wheel / touch nav all working? Iframe scroll fallback? - 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:** - One *unexpected* layout / motion / typographic move that wasn't required? - Or 100% safe — could be any deck/landing from any agency? - Is the innovation *earned* (matches direction) or grafted on (random WebGL on a Kinfolk slow-living deck)?

**0–4** Generic AI-slop median. **5–6** Competent and unmemorable. **7–8** One memorable moment, the rest solid. **9–10** Multiple moves you'd steal — but each one obviously serves the thesis.

## Scoring discipline (read before you score)

- **Always cite evidence** — "scored 4 because hero page mixes Playfair display with Inter sans on the same line" beats "feels inconsistent". Numbers without evidence get rejected. - **Don't average up** — if Hierarchy is 5 because page 3 is broken, don't bump to 7 because pages 1 and 2 are fine. The score is the *worst sustained band*. - **Don't grade-inflate** — a 7 means *strong*, not *acceptable*. If every score is 7+, you're not reviewing critically. - **Innovation is allowed to be low** — 5/10 is fine for production deliverables. Don't punish *appropriate* conservatism.

## Workflow

### Step 1 — Acquire the artifact

Three modes:

1. **Project file** — user said "review the index.html I just made": open it from the project folder. 2. **Pasted HTML** — user pasted code in the chat: read it from the message. 3. **Generated by you in this turn** — you just emitted an artifact above and want to self-critique: re-read your own `<artifact>`.

If multiple HTML files exist, ask which one (don't review all).

### Step 2 — Read enough to score

Skim the entire `<style>`, then read 6–8 representative content blocks. **Do not score from frontmatter alone.** The score depends on *executed* design, not declared intent.

### Step 3 — Score with evidence

For each of the 5 dimensions, write the score and a 30–80 word evidence paragraph that names specific elements. Use line numbers, class names, page numbers.

Example: ``` Dimension: Detail execution Score: 6 / 10 Evidence: Stat-cards on page 3 align cleanly (grid-6, 3×2), but on page 8 the right column foot sits 2vh higher than the left because .callout has 3vh top margin while the figure doesn't. Image captions use mono on page 5 but sans on page 7 — pick one. ```

### Step 4 — Build the action lists

Aggregate the 5 evidence paragraphs into:

- **Keep** (3–5 bullets) — concrete things working that the user must not break in the next iteration. Cite by class / page / element. - **Fix** (3–6 bullets) — must-do, ordered by *visual cost saved per minute spent*. Each bullet ≤ 1 sentence. - **Quick wins** (3–5 bullets) — 5–15 minutes each, high signal-to-noise (e.g. "swap `display:flex` for `grid` on page 4 to fix the column drift").

### Step 5 — Emit the report HTML

Build a single file:

- Header: artifact name + reviewer credit + date - Big radar chart (SVG) - 5 dimension cards in a 1-column or 2-column grid - Three action lists at the bottom with checkbox affordance

Use the active DESIGN.md tokens if one exists; otherwise default to a neutral light theme (off-white background, near-black text, one accent for radar fill).

## Output contract

``` <artifact identifier="critique-<artifact-slug>" type="text/html" title="Critique · <Artifact Title>"> <!doctype html> <html>...</html> </artifact> ```

One sentence before the artifact ("Reviewed X across 5 dimensions, see report below.") and **stop after `</artifact>`** — do not paraphrase the report in chat; the user will read the artifact.

## Hard rules

- **5 scores, every time** — partial reports (e.g. only 3 dimensions) are not allowed. - **Evidence per score** — no "feels off" / "needs work". If you can't cite an element, the score is not justified. - **Don't grade-inflate** — overall mean above 8 is suspicious; check yourself. - **Don't review your own artifact in the same turn** — the user needs to see it first. Self-critique only on explicit request ("now critique what you just made"). - **Single-file HTML only** — no external CSS/JS. Inline everything. - **Radar chart is mandatory** — gives the report a recognizable silhouette and lets the user spot weak axes at a glance.