Product design harness
Skill cis2042/product-design-harness/skills/product-design-harness
Agentic Design Process with Designer-in-the-Loop product judgment across User, Evidence, and Business flows.
npx -y skills add cis2042/product-design-harness --skill product-design-harnessAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
2 things to look at
- 27 days oldThe repository was created 27 days ago. New is not bad, but a brand new repository carrying a familiar-sounding name is the shape a typosquat arrives in, and there has been no time for anyone else to find a problem with it.
- 12 stars12 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Use when a product direction, feature, workflow, experiment, launch, feedback signal, automation, or scale decision needs judgment before execution or the next iteration.
The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.
SKILL.md
5.7 KB, ~1.2k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
Product Design Harness
Decide whether a product direction should continue, be verified, or be reframed anywhere in the product loop.
Execution includes design, implementation, prototype, launch, growth, automation, or investment.
Start
Load in this order:
resources/schemas/session-config.schema.json: setworking_language; keepcanonical_identifiersin English.resources/knowledge/ontology.json: use the canonical UX3 knowledge kernel and its approved Flow definitions.resources/knowledge/rules.json: load required rules plus only triggered conditional rules.resources/prompts/start-review.md.
Then fill resources/templates/product-brief.md, select the smallest responsible mode,
and return resources/schemas/review-result.schema.json.
Validate every review result with resources/scripts/check_review.py. JSON Schema checks
shape and conditional fields; check_review.py is the canonical validator for
the worst-verdict, weakest-flow, and headline-tier semantic checks.
Modes
| Mode | Use when |
|---|---|
| Quick Gate | Small, reversible, low-risk change. |
| Standard Gate | New feature, workflow, or experiment. |
| UX3 Council | High uncertainty, external evidence, meaningful risk, multiple reviewers, or human-owned trade-off. |
Handoff is not a review mode. When a prior review already returned continue, reuse its context pack instead of running a new review.
Reversibility lowers mode, not the review requirement.
UX3
Review three connected dimensions:
| Flow | Core question |
|---|---|
| User Flow | Who is the product for, who is affected, what are they trying to accomplish, and what cost or loss of control exists now? |
| Evidence Flow | What signal was observed, where did it come from, what interpretation is being made, what counter-signal weakens it, and what decision impact follows? |
| Business Flow | Who creates value, receives value, pays or decides, bears cost or risk, and can the exchange remain viable and legitimate? |
Then inspect the intersections: Situated Understanding, Viable Learning, and Sustainable Value Exchange.
UX3 Decision Kernel
Apply the same reduction sequence to every submitted review:
- Validate lane contracts and evidence references with
resources/scripts/check_review.py. - Reduce to the worst verdict and deterministic weakest flow.
- Gate uncertainty, risk, reversibility, and human-owned calls.
- Emit one canonical verdict, next action, execution boundary, and stop conditions.
Do not average lanes. Human-owned calls are recorded through an accountable decision record; they are not converted into a machine score.
Before handoff, name product organization, issuer, stakeholder effects, and accountable owner. Missing issuer or owner blocks implementation.
Operating Rules
- Do not implement during review.
verifybranch: verify authorizes only the exact proof_step and never general coding.continuebranch: continue plus a valid context pack authorizes implementation.- Every result states
may_do,must_not_do, andmust_ask. - List disconfirming evidence before support.
- Do not average reviewer verdicts.
- The weakest flow controls the next action.
- External tools return evidence receipts, not verdicts.
- Evidence tier controls action size; confidence does not upgrade weak proof.
- Council mode requires independent reviews and a challenge round.
- If all independent Council reviews return continue, a valid resources/schemas/red-team-review.schema.json result must be attached to the Council input before synthesis.
- Designer taste is a human-owned input, never an evidence score.
- Incoming feedback must be classified before it changes direction or work.
- Human-owned decisions stay human-owned.
Triggered Distilled Rules
Load only rules whose observable trigger applies. These families refine the three Flow reviews; they do not create new verdicts or allow a strong Flow to outvote a weak one.
| Situation | Required rule |
|---|---|
| Mental-model mismatch, hidden capability, or misunderstood consequence | ux3.rule.mental_model_alignment |
| Cognitive or recovery burden across human, task, tool, and environment | ux3.rule.human_factors_load |
| Research claim, synthetic user, simulation, interview, survey, test, or analytics result | ux3.rule.research_validity |
| Value proposition, positioning, buyer, channel, or GTM path before fit is proven | ux3.rule.value_market_path |
| Agent plan or tool action that needs visibility, control, handoff, or recovery | ux3.rule.human_agent_interaction |
| Retention, personalization, or gamification that changes repeated behavior | ux3.rule.motivation_ethics |
Outcome
| Verdict | Required next step |
|---|---|
| continue | Create resources/templates/context-pack.md within the execution boundary. |
| verify | Run one proof step only. |
| stop_reframe | Stop execution and return a better product question. |
Use triggered rule IDs for detail instead of duplicating every rule in prompts. Common triggers include ux3.rule.actor_boundary, ux3.rule.problem_hypothesis, ux3.rule.evidence_separation, ux3.rule.minimum_validated_proof, ux3.rule.feedback_classification, and ux3.rule.human_judgment. The distilled trigger table above covers additional rules that activate only when their specific product condition appears.
Use resources/docs/HARNESS.md for the handbook, resources/docs/OPERATING-PROTOCOL.md for the six-gate protocol, resources/docs/CONTRACTS.md for output rules, and resources/examples/ for worked reviews.
What ships with it: 85 files
298.8 KB alongside SKILL.md, 2 of them executable
resources/
- agents/business-flow-reviewer.md2.0 KB
- agents/claim-analyst.md683 B
- agents/council-facilitator.md2.0 KB
- agents/evidence-flow-reviewer.md2.1 KB
- agents/README.md776 B
- agents/registry.json1.4 KB
- agents/uncertainty-reviewer.md862 B
- agents/user-flow-reviewer.md2.0 KB
- docs/ADOPTION.md6.0 KB
- docs/ANTI-PATTERNS.md2.1 KB
- docs/CLAIMS.md2.2 KB
- docs/CODING-HARNESS-COMPARISON.md2.8 KB
- docs/CONTRACTS.md3.9 KB
- docs/COUNCIL.md4.2 KB
- docs/DECISION-RULES.md6.8 KB
- docs/GLOSSARY.md4.3 KB
- docs/HARNESS.md10.7 KB
- docs/LEARNING-LOOP.md2.0 KB
- docs/LIVE-CODING.md4.6 KB
- docs/OPERATING-PROTOCOL.md5.4 KB
- docs/ORCHESTRATION.md5.1 KB
- docs/PRINCIPLES.md2.2 KB
- docs/README.md912 B
- docs/rfcs/0001-override-protocol.md6.6 KB
- docs/UNCERTAINTY.md3.4 KB
- docs/UX3.md7.0 KB
- examples/evidence-response.json1.7 KB
- examples/feature-gate-review.md3.6 KB
- examples/human-decision.json650 B
- examples/live-coding-context-pack.json3.6 KB
- examples/live-coding-product-brief.json4.7 KB
- examples/live-coding-review.json4.9 KB
- examples/quick-context-pack.json2.7 KB
- examples/quick-gate-review.json4.3 KB
- examples/quick-gate-review.md1.3 KB
- examples/README.md1.6 KB
- examples/red-team-review.json1.1 KB
- examples/standard-gate-review.json4.6 KB
- examples/stop-reframe-review.json5.5 KB
- examples/stop-reframe-review.md898 B
45 more files not listed here. See all 85 in the repository.
Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most design frontend skills give in ~1.2k tokens
Counted across 1,169 of the 1,878 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-07
- use css variables for color consistencyin 72 of 1169, across 23 files
- commit to one bold aesthetic direction before codingin 72 of 1169, across 27 files
- match implementation complexity to the aesthetic visionin 70 of 1169, across 20 files
- add atmospheric background effects and texturesin 57 of 1169, across 9 files
- use unexpected spatial compositions and layoutsin 56 of 1169, across 8 files
- implement real working codein 55 of 1169, across 7 files
- vary themes and aesthetics across different designsin 48 of 1169, across 7 files
- launch chromium in headless modein 47 of 1169, across 4 files
- close the browser when donein 47 of 1169, across 4 files
- run provided scripts with help flag firstin 47 of 1169, across 4 files
- wait for network idle statein 47 of 1169, across 4 files
- use descriptive selectors for elementsin 47 of 1169, across 4 files
Said here and by no other author read
- load configuration files in specified order
- select smallest responsible review mode
- review user evidence and business dimensions
- inspect dimension intersections
- reduce review to worst verdict
- gate uncertainty and risk
Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.