first-commit

skills/critique/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,258 @@
+---
+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.