Receber por email
← Voltar para o catálogo

design-rules

Regras da fase de design para o comando /designer, carregadas na inicialização (passo 0). Abrange qualidade da especificação, lista de verificação de design e critérios de avaliação de abordagem.

45estrelas
Atualizado há 4 meses

Ver no GitHub ↗

Como adicionar

/plugin marketplace add hex0xdeadbeef/claude-kit

O comando exato pode variar conforme o repositório. Confira o README no GitHub.

Para o autor da skill

Cole no README do seu repo

Mostra que sua skill está catalogada na Skillteca, gera backlink e tráfego rastreável.

[![Skillteca](https://www.skillteca.com.br/api/badge/design-rules/svg)](https://www.skillteca.com.br/skills/design-rules)

Alerta por categoria

Receba novas skills de Design e Frontend toda segunda

1 email curto, só com as skills novas de Design e Frontend. 4 minutos de leitura, sem spam, cancela com 1 clique.

Você confirma o email no primeiro envio. Sem spam. Cancela com 1 clique.

Ler descrição completa

Design Rules

Purpose

Guidelines for the /designer command to produce high-quality design specs that reduce plan-review iterations.

Instructions

Step 1: Load at /designer startup

Read this SKILL.md for overview. Supporting files loaded on-demand per phase.

Step 2: Use phase-driven loading

  • Phase 3 (PROPOSE) → read [Spec Quality](spec-quality.md) for approach evaluation criteria
  • Phase 4 (WRITE SPEC) → read [Design Checklist](design-checklist.md) for self-verification
  • Phase 5 (USER GATE) → verify checklist before presenting to user

Spec Quality Criteria

| Criterion | Required | Check | |-----------|----------|-------| | Context describes current state | Yes | Not just "add X" but "currently Y exists, need X because Z" | | Scope has IN and OUT | Yes | OUT items have explicit reasons | | At least 2 approaches compared | Yes | With pros/cons for each | | Selected approach has rationale | Yes | References constraints from requirements | | Key decisions are numbered | Yes | Each has rationale and impact | | Risks have severity and mitigation | Yes | HIGH risks must have concrete mitigation | | Acceptance criteria are verifiable | Yes | Each can be checked as pass/fail |

Anti-Patterns

| Anti-Pattern | Why Bad | Fix | |---|---|---| | "The obvious approach is..." | Skips exploration, may miss better options | Always compare at least 2 | | Spec without OUT scope | Scope creep during planning | Explicitly list what's excluded | | Vague acceptance criteria ("works well") | Can't verify | Make criteria concrete and testable | | No risks identified | Every design has risks | Identify at least 1 per approach | | Copying task description as context | No analysis | Describe current state, not just goal |

Common Issues

Designer skips CLARIFY phase

Cause: Task seems clear. Fix: Even "clear" tasks benefit from scope IN/OUT confirmation. At minimum, confirm scope.

User rejects all approaches

Cause: Missing constraint not captured. Fix: Ask: "What constraint am I missing?" — don't generate more approaches without new information.

References

  • [Spec Quality](spec-quality.md) — detailed quality criteria, approach evaluation matrix
  • [Design Checklist](design-checklist.md) — phase-by-phase self-verification
Compartilhar X LinkedIn