Review design
Skill serpro69/claude-toolbox/kodex-plugin/skills/review-design
Minimal by design, explicitly multi-lang, production-ready and battle-tested collection of configs and plugins for your Claude Code agentic development workflows: mcp, configs, skills, agents and more.
npx -y skills add serpro69/claude-toolbox --skill review-designAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Review design, implementation, and task documents produced by design. Evaluates document quality, internal consistency, and technical soundness. Use after design completes and before starting implement.
SKILL.md
6.0 KB, ~1.1k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
Design Review
Conventions
- Read capy knowledge base conventions at shared-capy-knowledge-protocol.md.
Overview
Pre-implementation review gate that evaluates design documents produced by $kk:design before code is written. Sits between $kk:design (creates docs) and $kk:implement (executes them). Reviews tree distinct dimensions
- document quality/structure (completeness, internal consistency, clarity, convention adherence)
- technical soundness (architectural viability, edge cases, failure modes, trade-off analysis)
- feature value (Does the feature improve things for end-users? Is it useful? Is it correct in how it tries to solve the problem?)
Review Modes
Standard Mode ($kk:review-design)
Reviews design documents in the main conversation context. Fast, single-pass review using the workflow below.
Isolated Mode ($kk:review-design:isolated)
Delegates detection to independent reviewers that did not participate in the design, then annotates their findings with author context. Two parallel reviewers: a design-reviewer sub-agent and pal codereview (external model in native format). Produces a report organized by agreement level with corroborated findings highlighted.
- Cost: Higher (sub-agent + external model + annotation)
- Isolation: True — reviewers have zero authorship bias or session context
- Degradation: Graceful — if one reviewer fails, proceeds with the other; if both fail, suggests standard mode fallback
- Best for: When extra rigor is worth the cost (before starting implementation of high-stakes features)
See review-isolated.md for the isolated workflow.
Finding Types
| Type | Code | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Incomplete Spec | INCOMPLETE | Section lacks sufficient detail for implementation |
| Internal Inconsistency | INCONSISTENT | Two parts of the docs contradict each other |
| Technical Risk | TECH_RISK | Architecture choice has unaddressed failure modes, scalability concerns, or edge cases |
| Missing Concern | MISSING | Cross-cutting concern is absent (error handling, migration, backwards compatibility) |
| Ambiguity | AMBIGUOUS | Requirements can be interpreted multiple ways, likely to cause implementation divergence |
| Structure Issue | STRUCTURE | Document doesn't follow project conventions — missing sections, vague subtasks |
Severity Levels
| Level | Name | Description | Action |
|---|---|---|---|
| P0 | Critical | Fundamental flaw — design will not work as described, or critical requirement is missing | Must fix before implementation |
| P1 | High | Significant gap — likely to cause rework or wrong implementation | Should fix before implementation |
| P2 | Medium | Moderate concern — ambiguity or missing detail that could cause confusion | Fix or create follow-up |
| P3 | Low | Minor — style, structure, or nitpick | Optional |
Workflow
Mandatory order — methodology before evaluation. The flow below is strictly sequential. Do not evaluate document quality, assess technical soundness, or form findings until this SKILL.md and the process file are fully loaded. The design documents are both instruction context (they define what the feature is) and subject matter (they are what you evaluate) — but the review methodology and rubric must be loaded first.
Phases:
- Load documents — parse scope, locate feature directory, read in-scope docs
- Capy search — search
kk:arch-decisionsandkk:review-findingsfor prior context - Document quality review — completeness, clarity, consistency, convention adherence
- Technical soundness review — viability, edge cases, trade-offs, scalability, testing strategy
- Self-check and confidence assessment — re-read, question assumptions, assign confidence
- Present findings with next steps
See review-process.md for the detailed step-by-step process.
Invocation
Post-design gate. This is the recommended review step after $kk:design completes and before $kk:implement begins. The default scope reviews all documents, including task-format checks.
Standard mode — reviews all documents by default:
$kk:review-design [feature-name]
Standard mode with scope — review specific documents:
$kk:review-design [feature-name] design
$kk:review-design [feature-name] implementation
$kk:review-design [feature-name] tasks
| Scope | Documents reviewed |
|---|---|
| (none) | design.md + implementation.md + tasks.md |
design | design.md only |
implementation | implementation.md only |
tasks | tasks.md only |
Isolated mode with independent sub-agents:
$kk:review-design:isolated [feature-name]
$kk:review-design:isolated [feature-name] tasks
What ships with it: 4 files
23.8 KB alongside SKILL.md
Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most design frontend skills give in ~1.1k 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 process file before evaluation
- read knowledge base conventions
- search prior context
- review document quality
- review technical soundness
- perform self-check and confidence assessment
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.