---
name: critique
description: UX design review — evaluates visual hierarchy, emotional journey, cognitive load, and overall quality using Nielsen's heuristics (scored 0-40). Adapted from impeccable (Apache 2.0).
user-invocable: true
argument-hint: "[component or area to critique]"
---

Conduct a holistic UX design critique. Think like a design director giving feedback — evaluate whether the interface actually works as a designed experience, not just technically.

**Target:** $ARGUMENTS

## Preparation

1. Read `docs/design-system.md` for FA design context and brand guidelines
2. Read `docs/memory/decisions-log.md` for design rationale
3. Read the target component/area source and stories
4. Reference `docs/reference/impeccable/cognitive-load.md` for the 8-item checklist
5. Reference `docs/reference/impeccable/heuristics-scoring.md` for scoring criteria

**FA context reminder**: Funeral Arranger serves families often in grief or distress. The design must feel warm, trustworthy, transparent, and calm. Clarity over cleverness. Accessibility is critical — users may be elderly, emotional, or unfamiliar with technology.

## Phase 1: Design Critique

Evaluate across these dimensions:

### 1. Visual Hierarchy
- Does the eye flow to the most important element first?
- Is there a clear primary action visible within 2 seconds?
- Do size, colour, and position communicate importance correctly?
- Is there visual competition between elements of different weights?

### 2. Information Architecture & Cognitive Load
- Is the structure intuitive for a first-time user?
- Is related content grouped logically?
- Are there too many choices at once? (>4 at a decision point = flag it)
- **Run the 8-item cognitive load checklist** from `docs/reference/impeccable/cognitive-load.md`
- Report failure count: 0-1 = low (good), 2-3 = moderate, 4+ = critical

### 3. Emotional Journey
- Does the interface feel warm and trustworthy (appropriate for FA)?
- Would a grieving family member feel "this is for me"?
- Are there design interventions at anxiety-prone moments (pricing, commitment, forms)?
- Does the experience end well (confirmation, clear next step)?

### 4. Discoverability & Affordance
- Are interactive elements obviously interactive?
- Would a user know what to do without instructions?
- Are hover/focus states providing useful feedback?

### 5. Composition & Balance
- Does the layout feel balanced?
- Is whitespace used intentionally?
- Is there visual rhythm in spacing and repetition?

### 6. Typography as Communication
- Does the type hierarchy signal what to read first, second, third?
- Is body text comfortable to read? (line length 45-75ch, adequate size)
- Do font choices reinforce FA's warm, professional tone?

### 7. Colour with Purpose
- Is colour used to communicate, not just decorate?
- Does the warm gold/copper brand palette feel cohesive?
- Are accent colours drawing attention to the right things?
- Does it work for colourblind users?

### 8. States & Edge Cases
- Empty states: Do they guide users toward action?
- Loading states: Do they reduce perceived wait time?
- Error states: Are they helpful and non-blaming? (critical for FA — no aggressive red labels)
- Success states: Do they confirm and guide next steps?

### 9. Microcopy & Voice
- Is the writing clear and concise?
- Does it sound warm and professional (FA's tone)?
- Are labels and buttons unambiguous?
- Does error copy help users fix the problem without distress?

## Phase 2: Present Findings

### Design Health Score

Score each of Nielsen's 10 heuristics 0-4 (consult `docs/reference/impeccable/heuristics-scoring.md`):

| # | Heuristic | Score | Key Issue |
|---|-----------|-------|-----------|
| 1 | Visibility of System Status | ? | |
| 2 | Match System / Real World | ? | |
| 3 | User Control and Freedom | ? | |
| 4 | Consistency and Standards | ? | |
| 5 | Error Prevention | ? | |
| 6 | Recognition Rather Than Recall | ? | |
| 7 | Flexibility and Efficiency | ? | |
| 8 | Aesthetic and Minimalist Design | ? | |
| 9 | Error Recovery | ? | |
| 10 | Help and Documentation | ? | |
| **Total** | | **??/40** | **[Rating]** |

**Ratings**: 36-40 Excellent, 28-35 Good, 20-27 Acceptable, 12-19 Poor, 0-11 Critical

### Overall Impression
Brief gut reaction — what works, what doesn't, the single biggest opportunity.

### What's Working
2-3 things done well. Be specific about why they work.

### Priority Issues
3-5 most impactful design problems, ordered by importance.

For each issue, tag **P0-P3**:
- **[P?] What**: Name the problem
- **Why it matters**: How it hurts users (especially in FA's sensitive context)
- **Fix**: Concrete recommendation

### FA Audience Check
Walk through the primary user flow as:
1. **Bereaved family member** (60+, first time, emotional, possibly on mobile)
2. **Arrangement planner** (30-50, comparing options, price-sensitive, wants transparency)

For each persona, list specific pain points found.

### Minor Observations
Quick notes on smaller issues worth addressing.

**Remember**: Be direct and specific. Say what's wrong AND why it matters. Prioritise ruthlessly. Don't soften criticism — honest feedback ships better design.