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, the rule that picks one band when two of them describe the same screen, 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, and the tie-break is what keeps two runs on one screen from returning two different numbers. ## Step 1 - pick a mode Two facts settle it. Is an **artifact** attached - a pasted screenshot, an image, a URL, or an HTML snippet in a code block? And does the message ask a **decision question** - a choice between patterns, components, or flows ("should I use X or Y", "how should I handle...")? "Review this", "is this any good" and "what's wrong with this" are not decision questions: they ask about the artifact's own quality, which is what review mode answers. Take the first match: 1. **Comparison mode**: two or more artifacts, and the question asks which of them wins ("A or B", "which of these is better", "did the redesign improve this"). 2. **Grounded advisory mode**: at least one artifact, and a decision question the artifact does not itself answer ("here is our checkout - should the address form be a modal