---
name: design-review
description: "Designer's eye QA: finds visual inconsistency, spacing issues, hierarchy problems, AI slop patterns, and slow interactions — then fixes them. Iteratively fixes issues in source code, committing each"
---

---

**Create output directories:**

```bash
REPORT_DIR=".gstack/design-reports"
mkdir -p "$REPORT_DIR/screenshots"
```

---

## Phases 1-6: Design Audit Baseline

## Modes

### Full (default)
Systematic review of all pages reachable from homepage. Visit 5-8 pages. Full checklist evaluation, responsive screenshots, interaction flow testing. Produces complete design audit report with letter grades.

### Quick (`--quick`)
Homepage + 2 key pages only. First Impression + Design System Extraction + abbreviated checklist. Fastest path to a design score.

### Deep (`--deep`)
Comprehensive review: 10-15 pages, every interaction flow, exhaustive checklist. For pre-launch audits or major redesigns.

### Diff-aware (automatic when on a feature branch with no URL)
When on a feature branch, scope to pages affected by the branch changes:
1. Analyze the branch diff: `git diff main...HEAD --name-only`
2. Map changed files to affected pages/routes
3. Detect running app on common local ports (3000, 4000, 8080)
4. Audit only affected pages, compare design quality before/after

### Regression (`--regression` or previous `design-baseline.json` found)
Run full audit, then load previous `design-baseline.json`. Compare: per-category grade deltas, new findings, resolved findings. Output regression table in report.

---

## Phase 1: First Impression

The most uniquely designer-like output. Form a gut reaction before analyzing anything.

1. Navigate to the target URL
2. Take a full-page desktop screenshot: `${GSTACK_BROWSE} screenshot "$REPORT_DIR/screenshots/first-impression.png"`
3. Write the **First Impression** using this structured critique format:
   - "The site communicates **[what]**." (what it says at a glance — competence? playfulness? confusion?)
   - "I notice **[observation]**." (what stands out, positive or negative — be specific)
   - "The first 3 things my eye goes to are: **[1]**, **[2]**, **[3]**." (hierarchy check — are these intentional?)
   - "If I had to describe this in one word: **[word]**." (gut verdict)

This is the section users read first. Be opinionated. A designer doesn't hedge — they react.

---

## Phase 2: Design System Extraction

Extract the actual design system the site uses (not what a DESIGN.md says, but what's rendered):

```bash
# Fonts in use (capped at 500 elements to avoid timeout)
${GSTACK_BROWSE} js "JSON.stringify([...new Set([...document.querySelectorAll('*')].slice(0,500).map(e => getComputedStyle(e).fontFamily))])"

# Color palette in use
${GSTACK_BROWSE} js "JSON.stringify([...new Set([...document.querySelectorAll('*')].slice(0,500).flatMap(e => [getComputedStyle(e).color, getComputedStyle(e).backgroundColor]).filter(c => c !== 'rgba(0, 0, 0, 0)'))])"

# Heading hierarchy
${GSTACK_BROWSE} js "JSON.stringify([...document.querySelectorAll('h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6')].map(h => ({tag:h.tagName, text:h.textContent.trim().slice(0,50), size:getComputedStyle(h).fontSize, weight:getComputedStyle(h).fontWeight})))"

# Touch target audit (find undersized interactive elements)
${GSTACK_BROWSE} js "JSON.stringify([...document.querySelectorAll('a,button,input,[role=button]')].filter(e => {const r=e.getBoundingClientRect(); return r.width>0 && (r.width<44||r.height<44)}).map(e => ({tag:e.tagName, text:(e.textContent||'').trim().slice(0,30), w:Math.round(e.getBoundingClientRect().width), h:Math.round(e.getBoundingClientRect().height)})).slice(0,20))"

# Performance baseline
${GSTACK_BROWSE} perf
```

Structure findings as an **Inferred Design System**:
- **Fonts:** list with usage counts. Flag if >3 distinct font families.
- **Colors:** palette extracted. Flag if >12 unique non-gray colors. Note warm/cool/mixed.
- **Heading Scale:** h1-h6 sizes. Flag skipped levels, non-systematic size jumps.
- **Spacing Patterns:** sample padding/margin values. Flag non-scale values.

After extraction, offer: *"Want me to save this as your DESIGN.md? I can lock in these observations as your project's design system baseline."*

---

## Phase 3: Page-by-Page Visual Audit

For each page in scope:

```bash
${GSTACK_BROWSE} goto <url>
${GSTACK_BROWSE} snapshot -i -a -o "$REPORT_DIR/screenshots/{page}-annotated.png"
${GSTACK_BROWSE} responsive "$REPORT_DIR/screenshots/{page}"
${GSTACK_BROWSE} console --errors
${GSTACK_BROWSE} perf
```

### Auth Detection

After the first navigation, check if the URL changed to a login-like path:
```bash
${GSTACK_BROWSE} url
```
If URL contains `/login`, `/signin`, `/auth`, or `/sso`: the site requires authentication. question: "This site requires authentication. Want to import cookies from your browser? Run `/setup-browser-cookies` first if needed."

### Design Audit Checklist (10 categories, ~80 items)

Apply these at each page. Each finding gets an impact rating (high/medium/polish) and category.

**1. Visual Hierarchy & Composition** (8 items)
- Clear focal point? One primary CTA per view?
- Eye flows naturally top-left to bottom-right?
- Visual noise — competing elements fighting for attention?
- Information density appropriate for content type?
- Z-index clarity — nothing unexpectedly overlapping?
- Above-the-fold content communicates purpose in 3 seconds?
- Squint test: hierarchy still visible when blurred?
- White space is intentional, not leftover?

**2. Typography** (15 items)
- Font count <=3 (flag if more)
- Scale follows ratio (1.25 major third or 1.333 perfect fourth)
- Line-height: 1.5x body, 1.15-1.25x headings
- Measure: 45-75 chars per line (66 ideal)
- Heading hierarchy: no skipped levels (h1→h3 without h2)
- Weight contrast: >=2 weights used for hierarchy
- No blacklisted fonts (Papyrus, Comic Sans, Lobster, Impact, Jokerman)
- If primary font is Inter/Roboto/Open Sans/Poppins → flag as potentially generic
- `text-wrap: balance` or `text-pretty` on headings (check via `${GSTACK_BROWSE} css <heading> text-wrap`)
- Curly quotes used, not straight quotes
- Ellipsis character (`…`) not three dots (`...`)
- `font-variant-numeric: tabular-nums` on number columns
- Body text >= 16px
- Caption/label >= 12px
- No letterspacing on lowercase text

**3. Color & Contrast** (10 items)
- Palette coherent (<=12 unique non-gray colors)
- WCAG AA: body text 4.5:1, large text (18px+) 3:1, UI components 3:1
- Semantic colors consistent (success=green, error=red, warning=yellow/amber)
- No color-only encoding (always add labels, icons, or patterns)
- Dark mode: surfaces use elevation, not just lightness inversion
- Dark mode: text off-white (~#E0E0E0), not pure white
- Primary accent desaturated 10-20% in dark mode
- `color-scheme: dark` on html element (if dark mode present)
- No red/green only combinations (8% of men have red-green deficiency)
- Neutral palette is warm or cool consistently — not mixed

**4. Spacing & Layout** (12 items)
- Grid consistent at all breakpoints
- Spacing uses a scale (4px or 8px base), not arbitrary values
- Alignment is consistent — nothing floats outside the grid
- Rhythm: related items closer together, distinct sections further apart
- Border-radius hierarchy (not uniform bubbly radius on everything)
- Inner radius = outer radius - gap (nested elements)
- No horizontal scroll on mobile
- Max content width set (no full-bleed body text)
- `env(safe-area-inset-*)` for notch devices
- URL reflects state (filters, tabs, pagination in query params)
- Flex/grid used for layout (not JS measurement)
- Breakpoints: mobile (375), tablet (768), desktop (1024), wide (1440)

**5. Interaction States** (10 items)
- Hover state on all interactive elements
- `focus-visible` ring present (never `outline: none` without replacement)
- Active/pressed state with depth effect or color shift
- Disabled state: reduced opacity + `cursor: not-allowed`
- Loading: skeleton shapes match real content layout
- Empty states: warm message + primary action + visual (not just "No items.")
- Error messages: specific + include fix/next step
- Success: confirmation animation or color, auto-dismiss
- Touch targets >= 44px on all interactive elements
- `cursor: pointer` on all clickable elements

**6. Responsive Design** (8 items)
- Mobile layout makes *design* sense (not just stacked desktop columns)
- Touch targets sufficient on mobile (>= 44px)
- No horizontal scroll on any viewport
- Images handle responsive (srcset, sizes, or CSS containment)
- Text readable without zooming on mobile (>= 16px body)
- Navigation collapses appropriately (hamburger, bottom nav, etc.)
- Forms usable on mobile (correct input types, no autoFocus on mobile)
- No `user-scalable=no` or `maximum-scale=1` in viewport meta

**7. Motion & Animation** (6 items)
- Easing: ease-out for entering, ease-in for exiting, ease-in-out for moving
- Duration: 50-700ms range (nothing slower unless page transition)
- Purpose: every animation communicates something (state change, attention, spatial relationship)
- `prefers-reduced-motion` respected (check: `${GSTACK_BROWSE} js "matchMedia('(prefers-reduced-motion: reduce)').matches"`)
- No `transition: all` — properties listed explicitly
- Only `transform` and `opacity` animated (not layout properties like width, height, top, left)

**8. Content & Microcopy** (8 items)
- Empty states designed with warmth (message + action + illustration/icon)
- Error messages specific: what happened + why + what to do next
- Button labels specific ("Save API Key" not "Continue" or "Submit")
- No placeholder/lorem ipsum text visible in production
- Truncation handled (`text-overflow: ellipsis`, `line-clamp`, or `break-words`)
- Active voice ("Install the CLI" not "The CLI will be installed")
- Loading states end with `…` ("Saving…" not "Saving...")
- Destructive actions have confirmation modal or undo window

**9. AI Slop Detection** (10 anti-patterns — the blacklist)

The test: would a human designer at a respected studio ever ship this?

- Purple/violet/indigo gradient backgrounds or blue-to-purple color schemes
- **The 3-column feature grid:** icon-in-colored-circle + bold title + 2-line description, repeated 3x symmetrically. THE most recognizable AI layout.
- Icons in colored circles as section decoration (SaaS starter template look)
- Centered everything (`text-align: center` on all headings, descriptions, cards)
- Uniform bubbly border-radius on every element (same large radius on everything)
- Decorative blobs, floating circles, wavy SVG dividers (if a section feels empty, it needs better content, not decoration)
- Emoji as design elements (rockets in headings, emoji as bullet points)
- Colored left-border on cards (`border-left: 3px solid <accent>`)
- Generic hero copy ("Welcome to [X]", "Unlock the power of...", "Your all-in-one solution for...")
- Cookie-cutter section rhythm (hero → 3 features → testimonials → pricing → CTA, every section same height)

**10. Performance as Design** (6 items)
- LCP < 2.0s (web apps), < 1.5s (informational sites)
- CLS < 0.1 (no visible layout shifts during load)
- Skeleton quality: shapes match real content, shimmer animation
- Images: `loading="lazy"`, width/height dimensions set, WebP/AVIF format
- Fonts: `font-display: swap`, preconnect to CDN origins
- No visible font swap flash (FOUT) — critical fonts preloaded

---

## Phase 4: Interaction Flow Review

Walk 2-3 key user flows and evaluate the *feel*, not just the function:

```bash
${GSTACK_BROWSE} snapshot -i
${GSTACK_BROWSE} click @e3           # perform action
${GSTACK_BROWSE} snapshot -D          # diff to see what changed
```

Evaluate:
- **Response feel:** Does clicking feel responsive? Any delays or missing loading states?
- **Transition quality:** Are transitions intentional or generic/absent?
- **Feedback clarity:** Did the action clearly succeed or fail? Is the feedback immediate?
- **Form polish:** Focus states visible? Validation timing correct? Errors near the source?

---

## Phase 5: Cross-Page Consistency

Compare screenshots and observations across pages for:
- Navigation bar consistent across all pages?
- Footer consistent?
- Component reuse vs one-off designs (same button styled differently on different pages?)
- Tone consistency (one page playful while another is corporate?)
- Spacing rhythm carries across pages?

---

## Phase 6: Compile Report

### Output Locations

**Local:** `.gstack/design-reports/design-audit-{domain}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md`

**Project-scoped:**
```bash
eval "$(${GSTACK_OPENCODE_DIR}/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)" && mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG
```
Write to: `~/.gstack/projects/{slug}/{user}-{branch}-design-audit-{datetime}.md`

**Baseline:** Write `design-baseline.json` for regression mode:
```json
{
  "date": "YYYY-MM-DD",
  "url": "<target>",
  "designScore": "B",
  "aiSlopScore": "C",
  "categoryGrades": { "hierarchy": "A", "typography": "B", ... },
  "findings": [{ "id": "FINDING-001", "title": "...", "impact": "high", "category": "typography" }]
}
```

### Scoring System

**Dual headline scores:**
- **Design Score: {A-F}** — weighted average of all 10 categories
- **AI Slop Score: {A-F}** — standalone grade with pithy verdict

**Per-category grades:**
- **A:** Intentional, polished, delightful. Shows design thinking.
- **B:** Solid fundamentals, minor inconsistencies. Looks professional.
- **C:** Functional but generic. No major problems, no design point of view.
- **D:** Noticeable problems. Feels unfinished or careless.
- **F:** Actively hurting user experience. Needs significant rework.

**Grade computation:** Each category starts at A. Each High-impact finding drops one letter grade. Each Medium-impact finding drops half a letter grade. Polish findings are noted but do not affect grade. Minimum is F.

**Category weights for Design Score:**
| Category | Weight |
|----------|--------|
| Visual Hierarchy | 15% |
| Typography | 15% |
| Spacing & Layout | 15% |
| Color & Contrast | 10% |
| Interaction States | 10% |
| Responsive | 10% |
| Content Quality | 10% |
| AI Slop | 5% |
| Motion | 5% |
| Performance Feel | 5% |

AI Slop is 5% of Design Score but also graded independently as a headline metric.

### Regression Output

When previous `design-baseline.json` exists or `--regression` flag is used:
- Load baseline grades
- Compare: per-category deltas, new findings, resolved findings
- Append regression table to report

---

## Design Critique Format

Use structured feedback, not opinions:
- "I notice..." — observation (e.g., "I notice the primary CTA competes with the secondary action")
- "I wonder..." — question (e.g., "I wonder if users will understand what 'Process' means here")
- "What if..." — suggestion (e.g., "What if we moved search to a more prominent position?")
- "I think... because..." — reasoned opinion (e.g., "I think the spacing between sections is too uniform because it doesn't create hierarchy")

Tie everything to user goals and product objectives. Always suggest specific improvements alongside problems.

---

## Important Rules

1. **Think like a designer, not a QA engineer.** You care whether things feel right, look intentional, and respect the user. You do NOT just care whether things "work."
2. **Screenshots are evidence.** Every finding needs at least one screenshot. Use annotated screenshots (`snapshot -a`) to highlight elements.
3. **Be specific and actionable.** "Change X to Y because Z" — not "the spacing feels off."
4. **Never read source code.** Evaluate the rendered site, not the implementation. (Exception: offer to write DESIGN.md from extracted observations.)
5. **AI Slop detection is your superpower.** Most developers can't evaluate whether their site looks AI-generated. You can. Be direct about it.
6. **Quick wins matter.** Always include a "Quick Wins" section — the 3-5 highest-impact fixes that take <30 minutes each.
7. **Use `snapshot -C` for tricky UIs.** Finds clickable divs that the accessibility tree misses.
8. **Responsive is design, not just "not broken."** A stacked desktop layout on mobile is not responsive design — it's lazy. Evaluate whether the mobile layout makes *design* sense.
9. **Document incrementally.** Write each finding to the report as you find it. Don't batch.
10. **Depth over breadth.** 5-10 well-documented findings with screenshots and specific suggestions > 20 vague observations.
11. **Show screenshots to the user.** After every `${GSTACK_BROWSE} screenshot`, `${GSTACK_BROWSE} snapshot -a -o`, or `${GSTACK_BROWSE} responsive` command, use the Read tool on the output file(s) so the user can see them inline. For `responsive` (3 files), Read all three. This is critical — without it, screenshots are invisible to the user.

### Design Hard Rules

**Classifier — determine rule set before evaluating:**
- **MARKETING/LANDING PAGE** (hero-driven, brand-forward, conversion-focused) → apply Landing Page Rules
- **APP UI** (workspace-driven, data-dense, task-focused: dashboards, admin, settings) → apply App UI Rules
- **HYBRID** (marketing shell with app-like sections) → apply Landing Page Rules to hero/marketing sections, App UI Rules to functional sections

**Hard rejection criteria** (instant-fail patterns — flag if ANY apply):
1. Generic SaaS card grid as first impression
2. Beautiful image with weak brand
3. Strong headline with no clear action
4. Busy imagery behind text
5. Sections repeating same mood statement
6. Carousel with no narrative purpose
7. App UI made of stacked cards instead of layout

**Litmus checks** (answer YES/NO for each — used for cross-model consensus scoring):
1. Brand/product unmistakable in first screen?
2. One strong visual anchor present?
3. Page understandable by scanning headlines only?
4. Each section has one job?
5. Are cards actually necessary?
6. Does motion improve hierarchy or atmosphere?
7. Would design feel premium with all decorative shadows removed?

**Landing page rules** (apply when classifier = MARKETING/LANDING):
- First viewport reads as one composition, not a dashboard
- Brand-first hierarchy: brand > headline > body > CTA
- Typography: expressive, purposeful — no default stacks (Inter, Roboto, Arial, system)
- No flat single-color backgrounds — use gradients, images, subtle patterns
- Hero: full-bleed, edge-to-edge, no inset/tiled/rounded variants
- Hero budget: brand, one headline, one supporting sentence, one CTA group, one image
- No cards in hero. Cards only when card IS the interaction
- One job per section: one purpose, one headline, one short supporting sentence
- Motion: 2-3 intentional motions minimum (entrance, scroll-linked, hover/reveal)
- Color: define CSS variables, avoid purple-on-white defaults, one accent color default
- Copy: product language not design commentary. "If deleting 30% improves it, keep deleting"
- Beautiful defaults: composition-first, brand as loudest text, two typefaces max, cardless by default, first viewport as poster not document

**App UI rules** (apply when classifier = APP UI):
- Calm surface hierarchy, strong typography, few colors
- Dense but readable, minimal chrome
- Organize: primary workspace, navigation, secondary context, one accent
- Avoid: dashboard-card mosaics, thick borders, decorative gradients, ornamental icons
- Copy: utility language — orientation, status, action. Not mood/brand/aspiration
- Cards only when card IS the interaction
- Section headings state what area is or what user can do ("Selected KPIs", "Plan status")

**Universal rules** (apply to ALL types):
- Define CSS variables for color system
- No default font stacks (Inter, Roboto, Arial, system)
- One job per section
- "If deleting 30% of the copy improves it, keep deleting"
- Cards earn their existence — no decorative card grids

**AI Slop blacklist** (the 10 patterns that scream "AI-generated"):
1. Purple/violet/indigo gradient backgrounds or blue-to-purple color schemes
2. **The 3-column feature grid:** icon-in-colored-circle + bold title + 2-line description, repeated 3x symmetrically. THE most recognizable AI layout.
3. Icons in colored circles as section decoration (SaaS starter template look)
4. Centered everything (`text-align: center` on all headings, descriptions, cards)
5. Uniform bubbly border-radius on every element (same large radius on everything)
6. Decorative blobs, floating circles, wavy SVG dividers (if a section feels empty, it needs better content, not decoration)
7. Emoji as design elements (rockets in headings, emoji as bullet points)
8. Colored left-border on cards (`border-left: 3px solid <accent>`)
9. Generic hero copy ("Welcome to [X]", "Unlock the power of...", "Your all-in-one solution for...")
10. Cookie-cutter section rhythm (hero → 3 features → testimonials → pricing → CTA, every section same height)

Source: [OpenAI "Designing Delightful Frontends with GPT-5.4"](https://developers.openai.com/blog/designing-delightful-frontends-with-gpt-5-4) (Mar 2026) + gstack design methodology.

Record baseline design score and AI slop score at end of Phase 6.

---

## Output Structure

```
.gstack/design-reports/
├── design-audit-{domain}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md    # Structured report
├── screenshots/
│   ├── first-impression.png                  # Phase 1
│   ├── {page}-annotated.png                  # Per-page annotated
│   ├── {page}-mobile.png                     # Responsive
│   ├── {page}-tablet.png
│   ├── {page}-desktop.png
│   ├── finding-001-before.png                # Before fix
│   ├── finding-001-after.png                 # After fix
│   └── ...
└── design-baseline.json                      # For regression mode
```

---

## Design Outside Voices (parallel)

**Automatic:** Outside voices run automatically when Codex is available. No opt-in needed.

**Check Codex availability:**
```bash
which codex 2>/dev/null && echo "CODEX_AVAILABLE" || echo "CODEX_NOT_AVAILABLE"
```

**If Codex is available**, launch both voices simultaneously:

1. **Codex design voice** (via Bash):
```bash
TMPERR_DESIGN=$(mktemp /tmp/codex-design-XXXXXXXX)
codex exec "Review the frontend source code in this repo. Evaluate against these design hard rules:
- Spacing: systematic (design tokens / CSS variables) or magic numbers?
- Typography: expressive purposeful fonts or default stacks?
- Color: CSS variables with defined system, or hardcoded hex scattered?
- Responsive: breakpoints defined? calc(100svh - header) for heroes? Mobile tested?
- A11y: ARIA landmarks, alt text, contrast ratios, 44px touch targets?
- Motion: 2-3 intentional animations, or zero / ornamental only?
- Cards: used only when card IS the interaction? No decorative card grids?

First classify as MARKETING/LANDING PAGE vs APP UI vs HYBRID, then apply matching rules.

LITMUS CHECKS — answer YES/NO:
1. Brand/product unmistakable in first screen?
2. One strong visual anchor present?
3. Page understandable by scanning headlines only?
4. Each section has one job?
5. Are cards actually necessary?
6. Does motion improve hierarchy or atmosphere?
7. Would design feel premium with all decorative shadows removed?

HARD REJECTION — flag if ANY apply:
1. Generic SaaS card grid as first impression
2. Beautiful image with weak brand
3. Strong headline with no clear action
4. Busy imagery behind text
5. Sections repeating same mood statement
6. Carousel with no narrative purpose
7. App UI made of stacked cards instead of layout

Be specific. Reference file:line for every finding." -s read-only -c 'model_reasoning_effort="high"' --enable web_search_cached 2>"$TMPERR_DESIGN"
```
Use a 5-minute timeout (`timeout: 300000`). After the command completes, read stderr:
```bash
cat "$TMPERR_DESIGN" && rm -f "$TMPERR_DESIGN"
```

2. **Claude design subagent** (via Agent tool):
Dispatch a subagent with this prompt:
"Review the frontend source code in this repo. You are an independent senior product designer doing a source-code design audit. Focus on CONSISTENCY PATTERNS across files rather than individual violations:
- Are spacing values systematic across the codebase?
- Is there ONE color system or scattered approaches?
- Do responsive breakpoints follow a consistent set?
- Is the accessibility approach consistent or spotty?

For each finding: what's wrong, severity (critical/high/medium), and the file:line."

**Error handling (all non-blocking):**
- **Auth failure:** If stderr contains "auth", "login", "unauthorized", or "API key": "Codex authentication failed. Run `codex login` to authenticate."
- **Timeout:** "Codex timed out after 5 minutes."
- **Empty response:** "Codex returned no response."
- On any Codex error: proceed with Claude subagent output only, tagged `[single-model]`.
- If Claude subagent also fails: "Outside voices unavailable — continuing with primary review."

Present Codex output under a `CODEX SAYS (design source audit):` header.
Present subagent output under a `CLAUDE SUBAGENT (design consistency):` header.

**Synthesis — Litmus scorecard:**

Use the same scorecard format as /plan-design-review (shown above). Fill in from both outputs.
Merge findings into the triage with `[codex]` / `[subagent]` / `[cross-model]` tags.

**Log the result:**
```bash
${GSTACK_OPENCODE_DIR}/bin/gstack-review-log '{"skill":"design-outside-voices","timestamp":"'"$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)"'","status":"STATUS","source":"SOURCE","commit":"'"$(git rev-parse --short HEAD)"'"}'
```
Replace STATUS with "clean" or "issues_found", SOURCE with "codex+subagent", "codex-only", "subagent-only", or "unavailable".

## Phase 7: Triage

Sort all discovered findings by impact, then decide which to fix:

- **High Impact:** Fix first. These affect the first impression and hurt user trust.
- **Medium Impact:** Fix next. These reduce polish and are felt subconsciously.
- **Polish:** Fix if time allows. These separate good from great.

Mark findings that cannot be fixed from source code (e.g., third-party widget issues, content problems requiring copy from the team) as "deferred" regardless of impact.

---

## Phase 8: Fix Loop

For each fixable finding, in impact order:

### 8a. Locate source

```bash
# Search for CSS classes, component names, style files
# Glob for file patterns matching the affected page
```

- Find the source file(s) responsible for the design issue
- ONLY modify files directly related to the finding
- Prefer CSS/styling changes over structural component changes

### 8b. Fix

- Read the source code, understand the context
- Make the **minimal fix** — smallest change that resolves the design issue
- CSS-only changes are preferred (safer, more reversible)
- Do NOT refactor surrounding code, add features, or "improve" unrelated things

### 8c. Commit

```bash
git add <only-changed-files>
git commit -m "style(design): FINDING-NNN — short description"
```

- One commit per fix. Never bundle multiple fixes.
- Message format: `style(design): FINDING-NNN — short description`

### 8d. Re-test

Navigate back to the affected page and verify the fix:

```bash
${GSTACK_BROWSE} goto <affected-url>
${GSTACK_BROWSE} screenshot "$REPORT_DIR/screenshots/finding-NNN-after.png"
${GSTACK_BROWSE} console --errors
${GSTACK_BROWSE} snapshot -D
```

Take **before/after screenshot pair** for every fix.

### 8e. Classify

- **verified**: re-test confirms the fix works, no new errors introduced
- **best-effort**: fix applied but couldn't fully verify (e.g., needs specific browser state)
- **reverted**: regression detected → `git revert HEAD` → mark finding as "deferred"

### 8e.5. Regression Test (design-review variant)

Design fixes are typically CSS-only. Only generate regression tests for fixes involving
JavaScript behavior changes — broken dropdowns, animation failures, conditional rendering,
interactive state issues.

For CSS-only fixes: skip entirely. CSS regressions are caught by re-running /design-review.

If the fix involved JS behavior: follow the same procedure as /qa Phase 8e.5 (study existing
test patterns, write a regression test encoding the exact bug condition, run it, commit if
passes or defer if fails). Commit format: `test(design): regression test for FINDING-NNN`.

### 8f. Self-Regulation (STOP AND EVALUATE)

Every 5 fixes (or after any revert), compute the design-fix risk level:

```
DESIGN-FIX RISK:
  Start at 0%
  Each revert:                        +15%
  Each CSS-only file change:          +0%   (safe — styling only)
  Each JSX/TSX/component file change: +5%   per file
  After fix 10:                       +1%   per additional fix
  Touching unrelated files:           +20%
```

**If risk > 20%:** STOP immediately. Show the user what you've done so far. Ask whether to continue.

**Hard cap: 30 fixes.** After 30 fixes, stop regardless of remaining findings.

---

## Phase 9: Final Design Audit

After all fixes are applied:

1. Re-run the design audit on all affected pages
2. Compute final design score and AI slop score
3. **If final scores are WORSE than baseline:** WARN prominently — something regressed

---

## Phase 10: Report

Write the report to both local and project-scoped locations:

**Local:** `.gstack/design-reports/design-audit-{domain}-{YYYY-MM-DD}.md`

**Project-scoped:**
```bash
eval "$(${GSTACK_OPENCODE_DIR}/bin/gstack-slug 2>/dev/null)" && mkdir -p ~/.gstack/projects/$SLUG
```
Write to `~/.gstack/projects/{slug}/{user}-{branch}-design-audit-{datetime}.md`

**Per-finding additions** (beyond standard design audit report):
- Fix Status: verified / best-effort / reverted / deferred
- Commit SHA (if fixed)
- Files Changed (if fixed)
- Before/After screenshots (if fixed)

**Summary section:**
- Total findings
- Fixes applied (verified: X, best-effort: Y, reverted: Z)
- Deferred findings
- Design score delta: baseline → final
- AI slop score delta: baseline → final

**PR Summary:** Include a one-line summary suitable for PR descriptions:
> "Design review found N issues, fixed M. Design score X → Y, AI slop score X → Y."

---

## Phase 11: TODOS.md Update

If the repo has a `TODOS.md`:

1. **New deferred design findings** → add as TODOs with impact level, category, and description
2. **Fixed findings that were in TODOS.md** → annotate with "Fixed by /design-review on {branch}, {date}"

---

## Additional Rules (design-review specific)

11. **Clean working tree required.** If dirty, use question to offer commit/stash/abort before proceeding.
12. **One commit per fix.** Never bundle multiple design fixes into one commit.
13. **Only modify tests when generating regression tests in Phase 8e.5.** Never modify CI configuration. Never modify existing tests — only create new test files.
14. **Revert on regression.** If a fix makes things worse, `git revert HEAD` immediately.
15. **Self-regulate.** Follow the design-fix risk heuristic. When in doubt, stop and ask.
16. **CSS-first.** Prefer CSS/styling changes over structural component changes. CSS-only changes are safer and more reversible.
17. **DESIGN.md export.** You MAY write a DESIGN.md file if the user accepts the offer from Phase 2.
