design-craftlisted

UI/UX craft + design-decision communication skill, distilled from Albert Chipman's *UX/UI Design 2022* and Tom Greever's *Articulating Design Decisions*. Five modes: AUDIT a screen/component against visual-hierarchy, typography, readability, alignment/grid, consistency and microcopy rules; RATIONALE — write the 'Big Three' justification for any design decision (what problem it solves, how it affects the user, why it beats the alternative); RESPOND to design feedback or a stakeholder request with the IDEAL response (Thank→Repeat→Prepare, strategy, tactics, ask for agreement); PREP a design review (anticipated objections, alternatives, data, follow-up); INTAKE a new design project (goals, users, metrics, decision-maker). Use when the user says 'audit this UI', 'design review', 'looks amateur/unprofessional/AI-made', 'why did you design it this way', 'justify this design', 'the client/stakeholder wants X', 'present this design', 'readability', 'typography', 'visual hierarchy', 'microcopy', 'design rationale', or
emamulmursalin47/design-craft · ★ 0 · Web & Frontend · score 76

Install: claude install-skill emamulmursalin47/design-craft

# design-craft — make it good, then make it understood Two halves, one skill: 1. **Craft** (Chipman): rules that make an interface read as designed rather than assembled — hierarchy, consistency, typography, readability, alignment/grid, microcopy, error handling. 2. **Articulation** (Greever): every design decision must answer the **Big Three** — *What problem does it solve? How does it affect the user? Why is it better than the alternative?* — and be communicated so stakeholders agree and don't reopen it next week. Reference files are the source of truth; this file is the router. Read only the references a mode needs. ## Non-negotiables (apply in every mode) - **"Works", never "like".** Strike *like / don't like / from a design perspective* from all output. Evaluate effectiveness against a goal, a use case, or a user, not preference. Rephrase the user's preference statements into effectiveness questions before answering them. - **Evidence ladder — label which rung you're on.** `data` (analytics, A/B) › `user testing` (observed) › `external research` (cite title/author/url) › `established pattern / heuristic` › `informed intuition`. Never invent a number, a study, or a test result. If you have no evidence, say "assumption" and propose how to check it. - **Every finding/decision cites a principle** from `references/` (e.g. *hierarchy: size/colour/contrast/space*, *≤2 typefaces, ≤3 colours*, *40–55 chars per line*). No "this feels off". - **Lead with a yes.** Agre