design-evaluation-audit
$
npx mdskill add lyndonkl/claude/design-evaluation-auditAudit designs against cognitive principles with severity-ranked fixes.
- Enables objective design reviews and usability diagnosis.
- Depends on cognitive science checklists and scoring rubrics.
- Prioritizes issues by severity before recommending fixes.
- Delivers structured reports with actionable improvement steps.
SKILL.md
.github/skills/design-evaluation-auditView on GitHub ↗
--- name: design-evaluation-audit description: Systematically evaluates existing designs against cognitive science principles using repeatable checklists, scoring rubrics, and severity-classified fix recommendations. Use when conducting design reviews or critiques, evaluating designs for cognitive alignment, performing quality assurance before launch, diagnosing usability issues, or choosing between design alternatives with objective criteria. --- # Design Evaluation & Audit ## Table of Contents - [Skill Boundaries](#skill-boundaries) - [Design Review Workflow](#design-review-workflow) - [Path Selection Menu](#path-selection-menu) - [Path 1: Run Cognitive Design Checklist](#path-1-run-cognitive-design-checklist) - [Path 2: Run Visualization Audit](#path-2-run-visualization-audit) - [Path 3: Combined Review](#path-3-combined-review) - [Quick Reference](#quick-reference) - [Guardrails](#guardrails) --- ## Skill Boundaries **Use instead of this skill for:** - Creating new designs from scratch: use `cognitive-design` - Learning cognitive theory: use `cognitive-design` Path 1 - Detecting misleading visualizations: use `cognitive-fallacies-guard` --- ## Design Review Workflow **Time:** 30-90 minutes depending on scope **Copy this checklist and track your progress:** ``` Design Evaluation Progress: - [ ] Step 1: Systematic Assessment - [ ] Step 2: Visualization Quality Audit (if applicable) - [ ] Step 3: Severity Classification & Prioritization - [ ] Step 4: Fix Recommendations ``` ### Step 1: Systematic Assessment Apply the Cognitive Design Checklist across all 8 dimensions: Visibility, Visual Hierarchy, Chunking, Simplicity, Memory Support, Feedback, Consistency, Scanning Patterns. Check every item. Record pass/fail for each dimension with specific evidence. **Resource:** [Cognitive Design Checklist](resources/cognitive-checklist.md) ### Step 2: Visualization Quality Audit (if applicable) If the design includes data visualizations, apply the 4-Criteria Visualization Audit. Score each criterion 1-5: Clarity, Efficiency, Integrity, Aesthetics. Calculate average and identify weakest dimension. **Resource:** [Visualization Audit Framework](resources/visualization-audit.md) ### Step 3: Severity Classification & Prioritization Classify every finding by severity: - **CRITICAL:** Integrity violations, accessibility failures, users cannot complete core tasks. Fix immediately. - **HIGH:** Clarity/efficiency issues preventing use, missing feedback for critical actions, working memory overload (>10 ungrouped items). Fix before launch. - **MEDIUM:** Suboptimal patterns, aesthetic issues, minor inconsistencies. Fix in next iteration. - **LOW:** Minor optimizations, polish items. Fix when convenient. **Priority rule:** Fix foundation-first — perception before coherence, integrity before aesthetics, critical before high. ### Step 4: Fix Recommendations For each finding, document: 1. **What is wrong** — specific description with evidence 2. **Why it matters** — which cognitive principle is violated 3. **How to fix** — concrete, actionable recommendation 4. **Expected outcome** — what improves after the fix 5. **Effort estimate** — quick fix (minutes), moderate (hours), significant (days) Verify fixes don't harm other dimensions. --- ## Path Selection Menu ### Path 1: Run Cognitive Design Checklist **Choose this when:** Evaluating any interface, layout, content page, form, or general design. **What you'll get:** Pass/fail across 8 cognitive dimensions, test methods, common failures, severity-classified findings. **Time:** 20-40 minutes **→ [Go to Cognitive Design Checklist](resources/cognitive-checklist.md)** --- ### Path 2: Run Visualization Audit **Choose this when:** Evaluating data visualizations — charts, graphs, dashboards, infographics. **What you'll get:** 1-5 scores on Clarity, Efficiency, Integrity, Aesthetics with pass/fail threshold. **Time:** 15-30 minutes per visualization **→ [Go to Visualization Audit Framework](resources/visualization-audit.md)** --- ### Path 3: Combined Review **Choose this when:** Comprehensive review covering both interface elements and data visualizations. **Process:** Run Cognitive Checklist first, then Visualization Audit on each data component, merge findings, produce unified fix list. **Time:** 45-90 minutes **→ Start with [Cognitive Checklist](resources/cognitive-checklist.md), then [Visualization Audit](resources/visualization-audit.md)** --- ## Quick Reference ### 3-Question Rapid Check **1. Attention** — "Is it obvious what to look at first?" - If NO: hierarchy and visibility issues **2. Memory** — "Is the user required to remember anything that could be shown?" - If NO: memory support and chunking issues **3. Clarity** — "Can someone unfamiliar understand in 5 seconds?" - If NO: simplicity and comprehension issues All YES = likely cognitively sound. Any NO = run full checklist on the failing area. --- ## Guardrails **Out of scope:** Creating designs, teaching theory, providing domain guidance, replacing user testing, or covering full accessibility compliance. **In scope:** Systematic evaluation against cognitive principles, severity-classified findings, prioritized fix recommendations, and visualization quality scoring.
More from lyndonkl/claude
- abstraction-concrete-examplesBuilds structured abstraction ladders that translate high-level principles into concrete, actionable examples across 3-5 levels. Bridges communication gaps, reveals hidden assumptions, and tests whether abstract ideas work in practice. Use when explaining concepts at different expertise levels, moving between abstract principles and concrete implementation, identifying edge cases by testing ideas against scenarios, designing layered documentation, decomposing complex problems into actionable steps, or bridging strategy-execution gaps.
- academic-letter-architectGuides the creation of evidence-based academic recommendation letters, reference letters, and award nominations that combine concrete examples, meaningful comparisons, and genuine enthusiasm. Use when writing recommendation letters for students, postdocs, or colleagues, or when user mentions recommendation letter, reference, nomination, letter of support, endorsement, or needs help with strong advocacy and comparative statements.
- adr-architectureDocuments significant architectural and technical decisions with full context, alternatives considered, trade-offs analyzed, and consequences understood. Creates a decision trail that helps teams understand why decisions were made. Use when choosing between technology options, making infrastructure decisions, establishing standards, migrating systems, or when user mentions ADR, architecture decision, technical decision record, or decision documentation.
- adverse-selection-priorProduces a Bayesian prior probability that an offered transaction is +EV for the recipient, given that the counterparty chose to propose it. Applies Akerlof market-for-lemons logic -- if they offered it, they believe it is +EV for them, so the prior that it is +EV for us is materially below 50%. Reusable across trade evaluation, waiver drops (another team dropping a player is also adverse selection), job-offer analysis, M&A, and any "someone offered me this" situation. Use when you receive an unsolicited trade/offer/proposal, analyzing incoming trade prior, evaluating why a counterparty proposed a deal, or when user mentions adverse selection, market for lemons, why did they offer this, incoming trade prior, they proposed it, Bayesian adjustment on received offer.
- alignment-values-north-starCreates actionable alignment frameworks that give teams a shared North Star (direction), values (guardrails), and decision tenets (behavioral standards). Enables autonomous decision-making while maintaining organizational coherence. Use when starting new teams, scaling organizations, defining culture, establishing product vision, resolving misalignment, creating strategic clarity, or when user mentions North Star, team values, mission, principles, guardrails, decision framework, or cultural alignment.
- analogy-weight-checkFor every analogy in a substacker draft, verifies it carries mechanical weight — the analogy does real work explaining the mechanism, not merely decorates it. Cross-references analogy-catalog.md for novelty (is this analogy reused from a prior post?) and domain fit (biology > organizational > sports preferred; physics/military disfavored). Use whenever an analogy appears in the draft. Trigger keywords: analogy weight, decorative, mechanical weight, reused analogy, catalog check, metaphor check.
- answer-uncomfortable-questionTakes one strategic question about substacker ("should we launch paid?", "is this section dead?", "are we writing for the wrong audience?") and produces the mandatory evidence + reasoning + downside triad plus a recommendation. Used 3 times per Growth Strategist review. Trigger keywords: uncomfortable question, strategic question, evidence reasoning downside, triad.
- attribute-performanceFor each substacker post that materially over- or under-performs the rolling baseline (|z| ≥ 1.0), produces a plain-English attribution paragraph with calibrated confidence (high / medium / low / unexplained). Considers subject-line effect, topic zeitgeist, external share, day-of-week, length effect, and audience-notes signals. Labels unexplained outliers explicitly rather than fabricating a story. Use after compute-baseline when outlier posts exist. Trigger keywords: attribution, why did this post work, outlier explanation, performance analysis.
- auction-first-price-shadingComputes the optimal shaded bid for a first-price sealed-bid auction given a true private value, an estimate of the number of competing bidders N, and a value-distribution assumption. Implements the `(N-1)/N` equilibrium shading rule for uniform private values, adjusts for log-normal or empirical value distributions, layers a risk-aversion adjustment, and caps output against the bidder's remaining budget. Domain-neutral auction theory reusable across fantasy sports (baseball FAAB, NBA/NHL waiver auctions), prediction-market limit sizing, sealed procurement bids, and any blind-bid context. Use when user mentions "first-price auction bid", "sealed bid shading", "(N-1)/N", "FAAB bid amount", "auction shading", "optimal bid first-price", "bid for sealed-bid", "blind bid sizing", or when downstream logic needs a principled shade factor rather than an ad-hoc heuristic.
- auction-winners-curse-haircutApplies a Bayesian haircut to a bid valuation for common-value auctions where winning is itself evidence the bidder over-estimated. Takes a raw valuation, a value-type classification (common_value / private_value / mixed), the number of informed bidders N, and a signal-dispersion estimate, and returns an adjusted valuation. Domain-neutral and reusable across fantasy FAAB, prediction markets, M&A bids, ad-auction budgets, and any generic bidding context. Use when user mentions "winner's curse", "common value auction", "valuation haircut", "adverse valuation", "Bayesian bid adjustment", or "over-paying in auction".