Agent skill · design visual · nexu-io
critique
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".
Why this skill is useful
Generates a detailed design critique report with actionable insights and scoring that the AI wouldn't reliably produce on its own.
What it needs
About 6k tokens when loaded. Last updated 2026-08-07. 84,236 stars on the source repository.
What this skill does
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. …
How to use it
Reference it in AdaL, Claude Code, Cursor or any coding agent — nothing to install:
@skills nexu-io/critique