design-reviewlisted

# Design review Critique a UI artifact or answer a design decision question, always with a citation behind every claim. ## Step 0 - load the rubric Before writing any critique, read [references/review-rubric.md](references/review-rubric.md) if it is not already in context. It has the 0-4 scoring bands and the compact table of Nielsen's 10 usability heuristics you cite from. Do not skip this even if you know the heuristics - the exact wording of the bands matters for consistent scoring across runs. ## Step 1 - pick a mode - **Review mode**: an artifact is present in the request - a pasted screenshot, an image, a URL, or an HTML snippet in a code block. - **Advisory mode**: no artifact, and the message is a decision-shaped question ("should I use X or Y", "which is better", "how should I handle..."). If the request has neither an artifact nor a decision question, ask what the user wants reviewed instead of guessing. ## Step 2 - review mode ### 2a. Handle the artifact - Screenshot or image: read it directly. - URL: fetch and render it if you have that capability; otherwise ask the user to paste a screenshot. - HTML snippet: read the markup and inline styles as given. ### 2b. Score first, 0-4 Assign one score before listing issues. Use these bands exactly: - **0/4 - broken**: violates basic accessibility, hierarchy, or trust. Needs a rebuild, not a patch. - **1/4 - significant rework**: five or more heuristic violations, generic or placeholder copy, flat hierarchy wit