critique

Critique the UI at $ARGUMENTS through a design lens. Load the ui-craft skill.

Step 0: Visual capture (mandatory)

Code-only review is insufficient. Every audit/critique starts with the surface as the user sees it. Try the following in order; use the first one available:

1. Playwright MCP — if playwright MCP server is available, use it. Capture full-page screenshots at three viewports: desktop (1280×800), tablet (768×1024), mobile (375×812). Capture dark mode if the app supports it.
2. Browser DevTools / Chrome MCP — second choice; same viewport set.
3. Other browser automation (agent-browser, cursor-ide-browser) — third choice.
4. Ask the user — last resort. If no automation is available, request screenshots from the user before proceeding. Be specific:
   • "Visual review needs screenshots. Please provide:
     • Full-page at 1280px (desktop)
     • Full-page at 768px (tablet)
     • Full-page at 375px (mobile)
     • Dark mode of each, if supported."

Do not begin the review until visuals are captured or provided. State this explicitly to the user when no automation succeeds — don't silently fall back to code-only review.

If the user declines to provide screenshots, run a code-only pass and clearly mark the report [CODE-ONLY REVIEW — visual issues not assessed] at the top so the limitation is explicit.

Knob awareness (CRAFT_LEVEL sets the bar for what counts as "needs work"):

• CRAFT_LEVEL 3 → flag only anti-slop Critical items. Skip Minor polish.
• CRAFT_LEVEL 5-7 → flag Critical + Major. Mention Minor polish as optional.
• CRAFT_LEVEL 9+ → flag everything, including Minor polish and missing signature detail.

Run these lenses in order:

1. Anti-Slop Test (from SKILL.md): flag every item present. Critical first (ALL CAPS, purple gradients, identical card grids, bounce easing, emoji icons, glassmorphism + neon). Then major (colored pills on trends, thick colored borders, uniform radii, gradient text, walls of text). Then minor (straight quotes, missing tabular-nums, generic CTAs).
2. Craft Test (from SKILL.md): where does the design fall short of "one accent, 3-5 placements; plain secondary text for comparisons; functional color only; every section earns its space"?
3. Hierarchy: can the user tell what's primary, secondary, tertiary at a glance? Or does everything shout equally?
4. Clarity: is the value prop legible in 5 seconds? Are CTAs specific (not "Learn more")?
5. Signature detail: is there one memorable element that makes this feel designed, not assembled? If not, suggest one (motif, layout break, custom marker, distinctive hover).
6. Inspiration gap — read references/inspiration.md: which observed pattern from the archetypes / signature details applies here, and how does the current state diverge from it?

Output format — the Review Format table:

Before	After	Why

Prioritize by impact, not by file order. End with a one-paragraph summary of the top 3 changes that would raise this from "AI-generated" to "designed".

Do NOT edit code. This is a critique.

Close with a Craft Report (references/review.md → Craft Report) as the final wrapper around the findings table and top-3 summary — Checked names the lenses actually run (Anti-Slop, Craft Test, Hierarchy, Clarity, Signature, Inspiration gap) and at what CRAFT_LEVEL bar, Passed carries whatever held up under those lenses, Changed stays empty (critique doesn't edit), Left alone covers anything flagged but out of scope, Verdict is the one-sentence state. Produce it even when the surface passes clean — that's the validation the user is asking for.

Next step: /polish — apply the fixes this critique named (rung 1).