critique-usabilitylisted

Reviews HTML or markdown UI specs, wireframe write-ups, and page mockups against Nielsen's 10 usability heuristics: system status, user control and exits, consistency, error prevention and recovery, recognition over recall, and minimalist design. Judges the interface's flow, controls, and states, not the wording of error or empty-state message text (critique-microcopy covers that), and not conformance against accessibility standards such as contrast or screen-reader access (critique-accessibility covers that). Use when the user asks for a usability review, design feedback, a second opinion, a red-line pass, a heuristic evaluation, or a quality check on a screen, a flow, or an interface spec before it goes to build. Covers static specs and mockups, not live running applications.
product-on-purpose/critique-skills · ★ 1 · AI & Automation · score 71

Install: claude install-skill product-on-purpose/critique-skills

# critique-usability Critiques an interface design against Nielsen's 10 usability heuristics, operationalized into the 20 `NNG-H*` criteria in `references/NNG-HEURISTICS.md`. It reports where a design as specified would obstruct the user: a state with no way out, an action that commits without confirmation, a control nothing on screen names, an error that reports failure without a next step. ## Artifact claim **This skill critiques HTML or markdown UI specs, wireframe write-ups, and page mockups. It does not critique live running applications.** That narrow claim is deliberate ([S-05 (skills slate)](../../docs/internal/release-plans/plan_v0.1.0/S-05_skills-slate/spec.md) AC-8): every criterion here is decided against what the artifact commits to, never against observed runtime behavior. Timing, responsiveness, actual latency, real input handling, and anything that requires operating the interface are out of scope, because a static artifact cannot evidence them and a critique that pretends otherwise is speculation with a criterion ID attached. What that means in practice: - A flow whose next state is undefined is a finding about the artifact's silence, reported as such. - A criterion that would ask how fast something responds instead asks whether the artifact specifies any status indication at all, and whether what it specifies is unambiguous. - A request to evaluate a deployed URL, a running build, or a recorded session is out of claim. Say so, and critique the spec