Agent skill

UX Spec Review

by Donchitos in Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios

Validates a UX spec, HUD design or interaction pattern library for accessibility, design-doc alignment and implementation readiness, ending in one of four verdicts.

MITAuto-check passedFrontend & Design

Install UX Spec Review

skills CLI
$ npx skills add Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios --skill ux-review -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios ux-review --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/.claude/skills/ux-review .claude/skills/ux-review && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
ux-review
GitHub stars
26k
Token cost
~3.7k tokens
SKILL.md length
1,450 words
Files
1
Skills in repo
73
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
MIT

At a glance

Validates a UX spec, HUD design or interaction pattern library for accessibility, design-doc alignment and implementation readiness, ending in one of four verdicts.

  • Works in 4 steps: Parse Arguments → Load Cross-Reference Context → Output the Verdict → …
  • Checking a finished UX spec before it goes to the UI programmer
  • SKILL.md covers Overview, Phase 1: Parse Arguments, Phase 2: Load Cross-Reference… and Phase 3A: UX Spec Validation…, plus 4 more sections
  • Calls bash

What it does

The skill is the quality gate between UX design and visual design or implementation in the team UI pipeline. It accepts a file path, `all` for every spec under `design/ux/`, `hud` or `patterns` for those two documents, or asks when given nothing. A spec's template header picks its checklist, with name-based fallbacks, and the report says which checklist it assumed. For `all` it prints a summary table first and then detail per file.

Verdicts are APPROVED, NOT ASSESSED, NEEDS REVISION and MAJOR REVISION NEEDED. NOT ASSESSED applies when the file cannot be read, a review dimension has nothing to check against or the accessibility tier is uncommitted, and it ranks above APPROVED but below the two revision verdicts. Run it after finishing a spec, before handing off to a UI programmer or art director, before the gate into Production, and after major revisions.

When your agent uses it

  • Checking a finished UX spec before it goes to the UI programmer
  • Validating a HUD design against the game design documents and accessibility needs
  • Reviewing the interaction pattern library after major revisions

Example prompts

  • “Review design/ux/inventory.md and give me a verdict.”
  • “Validate the HUD spec for accessibility and readiness.”
  • “Run a UX review on every spec in design/ux/ and show the summary table.”

Requirements

  • UX specs under `design/ux/`
  • Pre-approved tools (allowed-tools): Read, Glob, Grep, Bash(bash "*/.claude/skills/ux-review/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config *)

Workflow steps

4 steps, taken from the step headings in SKILL.md.

  1. Parse Arguments
  2. Load Cross-Reference Context
  3. Output the Verdict
  4. Collaborative Protocol

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit be8993b. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves these tools, so the agent can use them without asking each time:

    • Read
    • Glob
    • Grep
    • Bash(bash "*/.claude/skills/ux-review/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config *)

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    Shell commands in SKILL.md call:

    • bash

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    No URLs in SKILL.md.

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

UX Spec Review loads about 3.7k tokens when it runs. Until then it costs about 42 tokens; SKILL.md has 1,450 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~42
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~3.7k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios at commit be8993b, republished under its MIT licence (© Donchitos). 1,450 words, ~3,727 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/ux-review/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder).
name
ux-review
description
Validate a UX spec, HUD design or pattern library — accessibility, GDD alignment, readiness. APPROVED / NOT ASSESSED / NEEDS REVISION / MAJOR REVISION NEEDED.
allowed-tools
Read, Glob, Grep, Bash(bash "*/.claude/skills/ux-review/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config *)
argument-hint
[file-path or 'all' or 'hud' or 'patterns']
user-invocable
true
model
sonnet

!bash "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config --keys workflow

Resolved above — use as-is. No block → defaults in .claude/docs/config-resolution.md.

UX Review

Overview

Validates UX design documents before they enter the implementation pipeline. Acts as the quality gate between UX Design and Visual Design/Implementation in the /team-ui pipeline.

Run this skill:

  • After completing a UX spec with /ux-design
  • Before handing off to ui-programmer or art-director
  • Before the Pre-Production to Production gate check (which requires key screens to have reviewed UX specs)
  • After major revisions to a UX spec

Verdict levels:

  • APPROVED — spec is complete, consistent, and implementation-ready
  • NOT ASSESSED — one or more review dimensions had no criterion to check against, or the spec could not be read; name which
  • NEEDS REVISION — specific gaps found; fix before handoff but not a full redesign
  • MAJOR REVISION NEEDED — fundamental issues with scope, player need, or completeness; needs significant rework

NOT ASSESSED ranks above APPROVED and below the two revision verdicts. A review that could not evaluate a dimension has not shown the spec is implementation-ready; but a gap somebody found is more actionable than one nobody could look for, so it must not displace them. Emit it when the spec file cannot be read, when a checklist dimension has no source of truth to compare against, or when the accessibility tier is uncommitted (below).


Phase 1: Parse Arguments

  • Specific file path (e.g., /ux-review design/ux/inventory.md): validate that one document
  • all: find all files in design/ux/ and validate each
  • hud: validate design/ux/hud.md specifically
  • patterns: validate design/ux/interaction-patterns.md specifically
  • No argument: ask the user which spec to validate

For all, output a summary table first (file | verdict | primary issue) then full detail for each.

Which checklist a file gets (a file path, or each file under all): its > **Template**: header line, which /ux-design writes — UX Spec → Phase 3A, HUD Design → 3B, Interaction Pattern Library → 3C. A file without that line is classified by name — hud.md → 3B, interaction-patterns.md → 3C, anything else → 3A — and the report says which checklist it assumed, and why.


Phase 2: Load Cross-Reference Context

Before validating any spec, load:

  1. Input & Platform config: Read the platform block from project.yaml (platform.targets, platform.primary_input, platform.gamepad_support, platform.touch_support); if project.yaml has no platform block, fall back to the ## Input & Platform section of .claude/docs/technical-preferences.md. For the set of supported input methods: when reading from project.yaml, derive it — keyboard/mouse if PC or Web is in targets; gamepad if gamepad_support is Full or Partial; touch if touch_support is Full or Partial; plus primary_input. When falling back to technical-preferences.md, use its explicit Input Methods field instead. This is the authoritative source for the Input Method Coverage checks in Phase 3A — not the spec's own header. If neither source is configured, fall back to the spec header.
  2. The accessibility tier committed to in design/accessibility-requirements.md (if it exists)
  3. The interaction pattern library at design/ux/interaction-patterns.md (if it exists)
  4. The GDDs referenced in the spec's header (read their UI Requirements sections)
  5. The player journey map at design/player-journey.md (if it exists) for context-arrival validation

Phase 3A: UX Spec Validation Checklist

Run all checks against a ux-spec.md-based document.

Completeness (required sections)
  • Document header present with Status, Author, Platform Target
  • Purpose & Player Need — has a player-perspective need statement (not developer-perspective)
  • Player Context on Arrival — describes player's state and prior activity
  • Navigation Position — shows where screen sits in hierarchy
  • Entry & Exit Points — all entry sources and exit destinations documented
  • Layout Specification — zones defined, component inventory table present
  • States & Variants — at minimum: loading, empty/populated, and error states documented
  • Interaction Map — covers all target input methods (check platform target in header)
  • Data Requirements — every displayed data element has a source system and owner
  • Events Fired — every player action has a corresponding event or null explanation
  • Transitions & Animations — at least enter/exit transitions specified
  • Input Method Completeness Checklist — a block for each input method in the Platform Target line; any unticked item is listed under Open Questions
  • Accessibility Requirements — screen-level requirements present
  • Localization Considerations — max character counts for text elements
  • Acceptance Criteria — at least 5 specific testable criteria
Quality Checks

Player Need Clarity

  • Purpose is written from player perspective, not system/developer perspective
  • Player goal on arrival is unambiguous ("The player arrives wanting to ___")
  • The player context on arrival is specific (not just "they opened the inventory")

Completeness of States

  • Error state is documented (not just happy path)
  • Empty state is documented (no data scenario)
  • Loading state is documented if the screen fetches async data
  • Any state with a timer or auto-dismiss is documented with duration

Input Method Coverage

  • If platform includes PC: keyboard-only navigation is fully specified
  • If platform includes console/gamepad: d-pad navigation and face button mapping documented
  • No interaction requires mouse-like precision on gamepad
  • Focus order is defined (Tab order for keyboard, d-pad order for gamepad)

Data Architecture

  • No data element has "UI" listed as the owner (UI must not own game state)
  • Update frequency is specified for all real-time data (not just "realtime" — what triggers update?)
  • Null handling is specified for all data elements (what shows when data is unavailable?)

Accessibility

  • Accessibility tier from accessibility-requirements.md is matched or exceeded
  • If Basic tier: no color-only information indicators
  • If Standard tier+: focus order documented, text contrast ratios specified
  • If Comprehensive tier+: screen reader announcements for key state changes
  • Colorblind check: any color-coded elements have non-color alternatives

GDD Alignment

  • Every GDD UI Requirement referenced in the header is addressed in this spec
  • No UI element displays or modifies game state without a corresponding GDD requirement
  • No GDD UI Requirement is missing from this spec (cross-check the referenced GDD sections)

Pattern Library Consistency

  • All interactive components reference the pattern library (or note they are new patterns)
  • No pattern behavior is re-specified from scratch if it already exists in the pattern library
  • Any new patterns invented in this spec are flagged for addition to the pattern library

Localization

  • Character limit warnings present for all text-heavy elements
  • Any layout-critical text has been flagged for 40% expansion accommodation

Acceptance Criteria Quality

  • Criteria are specific enough for a QA tester who hasn't seen the design docs
  • Performance criterion present (screen opens within Xms)
  • Resolution criterion present
  • No criterion requires reading another document to evaluate

Show full SKILL.md (440 more words)Show less

Phase 3B: HUD Validation Checklist

Run all checks against a hud-design.md-based document.

Completeness
  • HUD Philosophy defined
  • Information Architecture table covers ALL systems with UI Requirements in GDDs
  • Layout Zones defined with safe zone margins for all target platforms
  • Every HUD element has a full specification (zone, visibility trigger, data source, priority)
  • HUD States by Gameplay Context covers at minimum: exploration, combat, dialogue/cutscene, paused
  • Information Hierarchy gives every HUD element a priority tier (MUST KEEP / SHOULD KEEP / CAN HIDE / ALWAYS HIDE)
  • Visual Budget defined (max simultaneous elements, max screen %)
  • Platform Adaptation covers all target platforms
  • Tuning Knobs present for player-adjustable elements
  • Acceptance Criteria — at least 5 specific testable criteria
Quality Checks
  • No HUD element covers the center play area without a visibility rule to hide it
  • Every information item that exists in any GDD is either in the HUD or explicitly categorized as "hidden/demand"
  • All color-coded HUD elements have colorblind variants
  • HUD elements in the Feedback & Notification section have queue/priority behavior defined
  • Visual Budget compliance: total simultaneous elements is within budget
GDD Alignment
  • All systems in design/gdd/systems-index.md with UI category have representation in HUD (or justified absence)

Phase 3C: Pattern Library Validation Checklist

  • Pattern catalog index is current (matches actual patterns in document)
  • All standard control patterns are specified: button variants, toggle, slider, dropdown, list, grid, modal, dialog, toast, tooltip, progress bar, input field, tab bar, scroll
  • All game-specific patterns needed by current UX specs are present
  • Each pattern has: When to Use, When NOT to Use, full state specification, accessibility spec, implementation notes
  • Animation Standards table present
  • Sound Standards table present
  • No conflicting behaviors between patterns (e.g., "Back" behavior consistent across all navigation patterns)

Phase 4: Output the Verdict

markdown
## UX Review: [Document Name]
**Date**: [date]
**Reviewer**: ux-review skill
**Document**: [file path]
**Checklist**: [3A / 3B / 3C — from its Template line, or assumed from the file name]
**Platform Target**: [from header]
**Accessibility Tier**: [from header or accessibility-requirements.md]

### Completeness: [X/Y sections present]
- [x] Purpose & Player Need
- [ ] States & Variants — MISSING: error state not documented

### Quality Issues: [N found]
1. **[Issue title]** [BLOCKING / ADVISORY]
   - What's wrong: [specific description]
   - Where: [section name]
   - Fix: [specific action to take]

### GDD Alignment: [ALIGNED / GAPS FOUND]
- GDD [name] UI Requirements — [X/Y requirements covered]
- Missing: [list any uncovered GDD requirements]

### Accessibility: [COMPLIANT / GAPS / NON-COMPLIANT / NOT ASSESSED]
- Target tier: [tier]
- [list specific accessibility findings]

> **If `design/accessibility-requirements.md` is absent there is no committed
> tier, so this dimension has no criterion.** Report
> `Accessibility: NOT ASSESSED — no committed tier (design/accessibility-requirements.md absent)`
> and do NOT report it as COMPLIANT — a gate compared against an absent standard
> passes the way an assertion that can never fail passes. The same rule lives in
> `/team-ui` Phase 4 and is mirrored here so the two cannot drift. If the spec's own
> header states a tier, carry it forward as an **assumption** and say plainly that
> it was assumed rather than committed. Recommend `/ux-design accessibility` to
> establish the tier.

### Pattern Library: [CONSISTENT / INCONSISTENCIES FOUND / N/A]
- [findings]

> **For a HUD design there is no Pattern Library checklist to run it against (Phase 3B has none), so Pattern Library is N/A, excluded from the dimension count.**
> Report `Pattern Library: N/A — no pattern library checklist for this document
> type`.
>
> For a UX spec, this dimension does have a checklist — it is checked against
> `design/ux/interaction-patterns.md`. If that file is absent: N/A only where
> the workflow tier does not require the library (`minimal`) — report
> `Pattern Library: N/A — interaction pattern library not required at this
> tier`. At any tier that requires or recommends it (`standard`, `full`), report
> `Pattern Library: NOT ASSESSED — design/ux/interaction-patterns.md not found`
> instead: the library is missing, not out of scope, and NOT ASSESSED counts it
> against the verdict as the unresolved item it is.

### Verdict: APPROVED / NOT ASSESSED / NEEDS REVISION / MAJOR REVISION NEEDED
**Blocking issues**: [N] — must be resolved before implementation
**Advisory issues**: [N] — recommended but not blocking
**Dimensions not assessed**: [N] — [name each, and what would make it checkable]

[For APPROVED]: This spec is ready for handoff to `/team-ui` Phase 2
(Visual Design).

[For NOT ASSESSED]: [N] of the four review dimensions could not be evaluated:
[name them]. The spec may well be sound — this review cannot say either way for
those dimensions. [For each: the one input that would make it checkable.]
Handoff to `/team-ui` is not recommended on this result.

[For NEEDS REVISION]: Address the [N] blocking issues above, then re-run
`/ux-review`.

[For MAJOR REVISION NEEDED]: The spec has fundamental gaps in [areas].
Recommend returning to `/ux-design` to rework [sections].

Phase 5: Collaborative Protocol

This skill is READ-ONLY — it never edits or writes files. It reports findings only.

After delivering the verdict:

  • For APPROVED: suggest running /team-ui to begin implementation coordination
  • For NOT ASSESSED: name the missing input per dimension and offer to help produce it (/ux-design accessibility for an uncommitted tier, the GDD path for absent UI requirements). Do not re-run the review against the same missing inputs and report a different verdict — only new inputs change this one
  • For NEEDS REVISION: offer to help fix specific gaps ("Would you like me to help draft the missing error state?") — but do not auto-fix; wait for user instruction
  • For MAJOR REVISION NEEDED: suggest returning to /ux-design with the specific sections to rework

Never block the user from proceeding — the verdict is advisory. Document risks, present findings, let the user decide whether to proceed despite concerns. A user who chooses to proceed with a NEEDS REVISION spec takes on the documented risk.

© Donchitos, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

Just SKILL.md in .claude/skills/ux-review of Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios.

Open the folder on GitHubat commit be8993b

Compare with similar skills

UX Spec Review next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

UX Spec Review compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
UX Spec Review this skillDonchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios26k—~3.7kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Product Designeraakashg/pm-claude-skills112—~2.4kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Design Critiquegetcrew44/crew44356—~691Automated safety check: PassMIT
Design ReviewTheDecipherist/claude-code-mastery-project-starter-kit338—~712Automated safety check: PassMIT
UI Reviewespennilsen/pi122—~1.4kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Web Interface Guidelines Reviewervercel-labs/openreview1.7k97 repos~308Automated safety check: PassNone

Similar skills

  • Product Designer

    aakashg/pm-claude-skills

    A skill your agent uses when the user asks to review a design, critique a UI or mockup, give design feedback, or check a screen for usability and accessibility issues.

    112 GitHub stars~2.4k tokensUpdated 2 mo ago
    Frontend & DesignAuto-check passed
  • Design Critique

    getcrew44/crew44

    Walks an agent through five review passes on a screen, flow or mockup, then returns ranked findings with a severity and a suggested fix for each one.

    356 GitHub stars~691 tokensUpdated 4 mo ago
    Frontend & DesignAuto-check passed
  • Design Review

    TheDecipherist/claude-code-mastery-project-starter-kit

    Critique UI and UX for usability, accessibility, and distinctiveness with cited, evidence-based findings.

    338 GitHub stars~712 tokensUpdated 3 mo ago
    Frontend & DesignAuto-check passed
  • UI Review

    espennilsen/pi

    Review UI designs and implementations for accessibility, consistency, usability, and visual quality.

    122 GitHub stars~1.4k tokensUpdated 18 days ago
    Frontend & DesignAuto-check passed
  • Web Interface Guidelines Reviewer

    vercel-labs/openreview

    Official

    Review UI code for Web Interface Guidelines compliance. Use when asked to "review my UI", "check accessibility", "audit design", "review UX", or "check my…

    1.7k GitHub starsUsed in 97 repos~308 tokens
    Frontend & DesignAuto-check passed
  • Pushes an agent past generic defaults when designing dashboards, admin panels, SaaS apps and tools, with attention to structure, type, navigation and how data is shown.

    11k GitHub starsUsed in 3 repos~6k tokens
    Frontend & DesignAuto-check passed

More from Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios

All 73 skills in this repo
  • Architecture Decision

    Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios

    Create an ADR documenting a technical decision: context, alternatives considered, consequences.

    26k GitHub stars~1.7k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Dev Story

    Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios

    Implement a story: ADR guidelines, right programmer agent, code plus test.

    26k GitHub stars~2.4k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Auto-check: notes
  • Game Asset Audit

    Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios

    Audits game assets against naming conventions, file size budgets and format standards, and finds orphaned assets and missing references.

    26k GitHub stars~2k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Game Asset Spec Writer

    Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios

    Writes per-asset visual specs and AI image-generation prompts for a game's characters, enemies and screens, driven by the GDD, art bible and an entity inventory.

    26k GitHub stars~5k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Game Balance Check

    Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios

    Checks game data and formulas for balance outliers, broken progression, degenerate strategies and economy problems, and answers 'could not run' when the data is missing.

    26k GitHub stars~2.2k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Auto-check passed
  • Structured Bug Reports

    Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios

    Turns a description into a structured bug report, or scans code for likely bugs, then verifies and closes reports through four modes.

    26k GitHub stars~2.5k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    Auto-check: notes

Questions about UX Spec Review

What does UX Spec Review do?

Validates a UX spec, HUD design or interaction pattern library for accessibility, design-doc alignment and implementation readiness, ending in one of four verdicts. The skill is the quality gate between UX design and visual design or implementation in the team UI pipeline. It accepts a file path, `all` for every spec under `design/ux/`, `hud` or `patterns` for those two documents, or asks when given nothing.

When should I use UX Spec Review?

UX Spec Review fits situations like: checking a finished UX spec before it goes to the UI programmer; validating a HUD design against the game design documents and accessibility needs; reviewing the interaction pattern library after major revisions.

How do I install UX Spec Review in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios --skill ux-review -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (.claude/skills/ux-review in Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios) into .claude/skills/ux-review in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install UX Spec Review in Codex?

Run `npx skills add Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios --skill ux-review -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (.claude/skills/ux-review in Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios) into .agents/skills/ux-review in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use UX Spec Review in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios --skill ux-review -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/ux-review, .gemini/skills/ux-review, .github/skills/ux-review and .opencode/skills/ux-review in your project.

What does UX Spec Review need to run?

Going by SKILL.md and its folder, UX Spec Review needs the command-line tools its instructions call (bash). Our summary lists: UX specs under `design/ux/`. Its frontmatter pre-approves these tools: Read, Glob, Grep, Bash(bash "*/.claude/skills/ux-review/../../hooks/yaml-helper.sh" resolve_config *).

Does UX Spec Review access the network?

SKILL.md contains no URLs. Any network use would come from the scripts or tools the agent runs. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is UX Spec Review safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does UX Spec Review use?

UX Spec Review is published under the MIT licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does UX Spec Review use?

About 3.7k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 15k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full.

What are the alternatives to UX Spec Review?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with UX Spec Review: Product Designer (aakashg/pm-claude-skills, 112 stars), Design Critique (getcrew44/crew44, 356 stars), Design Review (TheDecipherist/claude-code-mastery-project-starter-kit, 338 stars) and UI Review (espennilsen/pi, 122 stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains UX Spec Review?

Donchitos (a GitHub user) maintains it in Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios, which has 26,031 GitHub stars. The repository holds 73 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on October 8, 2026.

Source: Donchitos/Claude-Code-Game-Studios on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.