skills.rest
phoenicisf
phoenicisfCOMMUNITY
Explore all skills by this author →
GitHub

UX Defender

Automate structured UX claim review and rebuttal workflows with evidence-based verdicts.

Updated Nov 7, 2025
Search Tags:#documentation#ux#design-guidelines#defense#rebuttal#claim-review
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/phoenicisf/forex-analyzer --skill ux-defender
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent▼
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: UX Defender
Source: https://github.com/phoenicisf/forex-analyzer/tree/main/.agents/skills/andm-ux-defender
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/phoenicisf/forex-analyzer --skill ux-defender

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

This skill provides a structured, evidence-based framework for performing UX claim reviews and rebuttals, ensuring design feedback is traceable, consistent, and aligned with project documentation.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Evidence-based verdicts: Citations from project docs justify Accept/Partial/Reject decisions.
  • 7-step claim-processing protocol: Guides assessment, fixes, and cascading changes across UX deliverables.
  • Handoff governance: Coordinates updates to docs and artifacts with stakeholders.

Quick Start

Start by loading the claim-review file and the UX guidelines, then run the 7-step claim-processing workflow.

Frequently Asked Questions about UX Defender

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I structure a UX design rebuttal using evidence from project documentation?▼

To structure a UX design rebuttal, apply a formal seven-step claim-processing protocol that assesses claims, identifies fixes, and traces cascading changes. This ensures feedback is traceable and aligned with project documentation.

What is an evidence-based UX claim review and when do I need it?▼

An evidence-based UX claim review is a structured workflow that evaluates design feedback using citations from project docs to issue Accept, Partial, or Reject verdicts. You need it during design reviews, cross-team handoffs, and adversarial UI critique.

How do I automate UX claim processing for cross-team handoffs?▼

Automate UX claim processing for cross-team handoffs by loading your claim-review file and UX guidelines into a seven-step workflow. This governs documentation updates and coordinates artifact changes with stakeholders.

Does this UX review workflow require specific dependencies or components?▼

This UX review workflow operates with no dependencies or components, relying solely on a formal seven-step processing protocol. It requires only your claim-review files and UX guidelines to generate evidence-based verdicts.

What is the best way to handle cascading changes across UX deliverables?▼

The best way to handle cascading changes across UX deliverables is to follow a seven-step claim-processing protocol that systematically assesses fixes and coordinates updates. This ensures reproducibility and satisfies governance requirements.

Why does my UX design documentation lack traceability during adversarial critique?▼

Your UX design documentation lacks traceability during adversarial critique if it does not use a formal claim-processing protocol with citations. Applying an evidence-based review workflow ensures feedback is traceable and reproducible.

Related Skills

Explore More Design & Creative Skills→
Ronin15Ronin15
14

hammer-benchmark-regression

Compare SDL3 HammerEngine metrics against baselines to flag performance regressions.

Community
Intermediate
ako866ako866

speckit-constitution

Update project constitutions and propagate changes to dependent artifacts.

Community
Advanced
KangJiSseokKangJiSseok

ibank-worklog-duplicate-audit

Audit iBank worklogs for duplicate pairs and generate minimal revision JSON.

Community
Intermediate
fuzzy-dynamicsfuzzy-dynamics
1

scientific-critical-thinking

Evaluate scientific claims using frameworks for evidence quality and methodology.

Official
Advanced