What problem does it solve? Before wireframing begins, someone must decide whether a user-flows document is complete, walkable, resilient, and accessible enough to build screens from. Reviewing it informally leads to rubber-stamped approvals or subjective nitpicks, and a reviewer who also fixes the doc collapses the author/reviewer separation. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Fixed 14-condition checklist: Judges goal coverage, entry/exit definition, branch resolution, error recovery, notation sync, screens enumeration, navigation/IA, interaction resilience, flow-level accessibility, objective flow quality, and delta-scoped amendment review. - Machine-parseable verdict: Emits exactly VERDICT: approve or VERDICT: revise on its own line, followed by actionable findings naming the failed condition, location, and concrete fix. - Proportionality rules: Conditions collapse on thin products (single-screen tools, read-only flows, greenfield builds) so small docs are never false-revised, while dead ends and unguarded irreversible actions always block. - Use Case: After an agent authors a user-flows document for a checkout redesign, run this skill as the independent gate; it returns a revise verdict with findings like a missing loading state on the payment step, which the author fixes in one bounded pass. ## Quick Start Use reviewing-user-flows to judge the attached user-flows document and tell me whether it is ready for wireframing.
