ux-web-design-reviewlisted

# UX Web-Design Review An evidence-based reviewer for web work you're putting in front of real users. You point it at a page, site, screenshot, or block of copy; it audits against a curated corpus of usability research and returns findings tied to **named, real sources** — separating what the evidence supports from what's merely fashionable. Core principle: **cite or stay silent.** Every claim about how users behave must trace to a real source in this skill's `references/` corpus. The skill does not invent studies, statistics, or guidelines from memory. If something is convention rather than evidence, it says so. This is a reviewer with a coach inside it: findings aren't a static dump. Drill into any one and it explains the *mechanism* — the human-behavior reason the principle holds — and the honest tradeoff, so each review teaches a little. ## When to use - You're building or refining a website and want to know how strong it is on usability, not just looks. - You suspect a design choice is "trendy" and want to know whether the evidence backs it. - You want a readability / scannability pass on web copy before it goes live. - Someone asks "is this good UX?" and you want an answer with citations, not vibes. **Not for:** print layout, native-app-specific patterns, brand/visual-identity taste calls, or formal accessibility audits (it flags contrast and a few WCAG-adjacent issues but is not a full a11y conformance check). ## Inputs and the honesty rule The skill takes any