Creative Eye

Creative Eye — Design Judgment for AI Agents

The Problem

AI agents ship bad creative because they have no taste. Specifically:

1. They confuse "exists" with "good." Generating output ≠ creating quality. The first version is almost never good enough, but agents treat it as done.
2. They have no benchmarks. Without seeing what "great" looks like, agents can't distinguish amateur from professional work.
3. They optimize for volume over quality. 50 mediocre variations when 1 excellent piece would outperform all of them combined.
4. They can't self-evaluate. They lack the vocabulary and frameworks to critique their own work.
5. They don't learn from failures. Same mistakes repeat across sessions because there's no feedback loop.

This skill provides the frameworks, prompts, and workflows to fix all five problems.

The Framework: STUDY → COMPARE → CREATE → EVALUATE

Every creative task follows this sequence. Never skip steps.

1. STUDY — Build Taste Through Exposure

Before creating anything in a given domain, study what "great" looks like.

Daily practice (10 min): Pick ONE brand or creator. Analyze ONE piece of their content. Ask:

• What makes it work visually? Be specific (not "it looks good" but "the 200-tracking on uppercase Didot creates editorial authority")
• What are the exact typography choices? (font, weight, size, tracking, color)
• What's the composition doing? (where does the eye land first, second, third?)
• What role does negative space play?
• What would break if you changed one element?
• What feeling does it create, and HOW does it create that feeling?

Log findings to a study log file. Accumulate observations over time. This builds the vocabulary and pattern library that enables judgment.

Picking brands to study: Choose 8-12 brands across these tiers:

• Tier 1 (3-4 brands): Direct competitors or brands with a similar aesthetic to yours
• Tier 2 (3-4 brands): Brands your target audience admires, even if different category
• Tier 3 (2-3 brands): Category leaders with exceptional design systems
• Tier 4 (1-2 brands): Wildcard inspiration from unrelated fields (architecture, editorial, fashion)

2. COMPARE — Find References Before Creating

Before generating any visual content:

1. Find 3-5 reference examples of what "great" looks like for THIS specific format
2. Save them or note URLs
3. Identify the specific qualities that make each one great
4. Use those qualities as the creative brief constraints

Never create in a vacuum. The difference between amateur and professional creative is almost always that professionals looked at references first.

3. CREATE — Every Decision Needs a Reason

When generating creative, every choice must be intentional:

• Why this font? Not "it's available" — what does it communicate? (Serif = editorial authority. Geometric sans = modern tech. Humanist sans = friendly approachable.)
• Why this color? Does it match the brand palette? What emotion does it carry?
• Why this layout? What does left-aligned vs centered communicate? Where should the eye go first?
• Why this size? Small and restrained = premium/exclusive. Large and bold = loud/promotional.
• Why this image treatment? Warm and grainy = authentic/vintage. Clean and sharp = modern/clinical.

If you can't articulate why, you're guessing. Stop and refer back to your references.

4. EVALUATE — Score Before Shipping

Run every piece through both evaluation tools below before publishing.

The 5-Point Creative Scorecard

Adapted from Runway's video evaluation framework. Score each dimension 1-10.

If ANY score is below its minimum → do not publish. Fix or discard.

The 10-Point Pre-Publish Checklist

Quick yes/no gate. Requires 8+ "yes" to ship.

1. Does this look like it came from a well-funded brand? (not a weekend side project)
2. Would your most design-savvy friend say "this is fire" unprompted?
3. If you remove all text, is the composition still interesting?
4. Does the typography have personality, or is it just "text on a thing"?
5. Are there more than 3 elements competing for attention? (if yes, remove one)
6. Would someone in your target audience actually use/wear/share this?
7. Is there anything that looks AI-generated or clip-art-like?
8. Have you compared this side-by-side with a real brand reference?
9. Would you personally pay the listed price for this?
10. If this got 100K views, would it help or hurt the brand?

The Self-Refine Loop

Based on Andrew Ng's Reflection pattern and the Self-Refine research framework (CMU). This is the core workflow for iterative improvement.

Generate → Critique (vision model) → Fix → Critique again → Ship or Kill

The Loop

Step 1: Generate. Create the first draft using references and brand constraints.

Step 2: Critique. Use a vision model to evaluate the output. Feed it the generated image plus 2-3 reference images from your library. Use the evaluation prompts below. Get specific scores and specific issues.

Step 3: Fix. Address ONLY the specific issues identified. Do not regenerate from scratch unless the critique identifies fundamental problems (wrong concept, wrong style direction).

Step 4: Re-critique. Run the improved version through the same evaluation. Compare scores.

Step 5: Ship or Kill.

• All scores at or above minimums → ship it
• Improved but still below on 1-2 dimensions → one more iteration (go to Step 3)
• No meaningful improvement after iteration → kill it and try a different approach
• Maximum 3 iterations. If it's not working after 3 passes, the concept is wrong, not the execution. Escalate to a human or start over with a fundamentally different direction.

Why 3 Iterations Max

Diminishing returns hit fast. If the core concept is sound, 1-2 refinements will get it there. If it takes more than 3, you're polishing the wrong thing. The discipline to kill bad work is as important as the ability to refine good work.

Vision Model Evaluation Prompts

Use these with any vision-capable model (GPT-4o, Claude, Gemini). Feed the generated image alongside 2-3 reference images from aspirational brands.

Merch Design Review

You are a senior creative director at a premium lifestyle brand.

Review this merch design against these criteria:

1. TYPOGRAPHY: Is the type treatment sophisticated? Does it have personality and intentional styling (tracking, weight, case)? Or does it look like default text on a template?
2. COMPOSITION: Is the layout balanced and intentional? Does whitespace serve the design? Or is it cluttered or awkwardly empty?
3. BRAND ALIGNMENT: Does this feel like it belongs to a specific brand with a clear identity? Or is it generic?
4. WEARABILITY/USABILITY: Would someone in the target demographic actually buy and use this? Would they be proud to be seen with it?
5. PRODUCTION QUALITY: Does this look like it was designed by a professional? Or does it have AI-generation artifacts, clip-art qualities, or amateur touches?

Score each dimension 1-10. Be brutally honest.
For any score below 7, explain exactly what's wrong and provide a specific fix.
Compare against the reference images provided — how does this stack up?

Social Content Review

You are a social media creative director for a premium brand.

Review this social post (image + copy) against:

1. SCROLL-STOPPING POWER: Would this make someone pause mid-scroll? What specifically catches the eye — or fails to?
2. AUTHENTICITY: Does this feel real and human? Or corporate, AI-generated, or try-hard?
3. BRAND VOICE: Does the copy feel like a consistent, distinctive voice? Or generic marketing speak?
4. VISUAL QUALITY: Is the image/graphic high quality? Any AI tells (weird hands, text artifacts, uncanny valley, over-smoothed skin)?
5. VALUE EXCHANGE: Does this give the viewer something (entertainment, information, emotion, identity validation)? Or is it just noise in their feed?

Score each 1-10. For any score below 7, explain the issue and suggest a fix.

Product Photography Review

You are an art director reviewing product photography for an ecommerce brand.

Evaluate this image on:

1. LIGHTING: Is the lighting intentional and flattering? Natural/warm vs flat/clinical? Does it create dimension and mood?
2. COMPOSITION: Does the product placement feel deliberate? Is there a clear focal point? How does the background serve the product?
3. STYLING: Do props and context elements enhance or distract? Is the scene believable and aspirational?
4. TECHNICAL QUALITY: Resolution, focus, color accuracy, white balance — are these professional grade?
5. BRAND STORY: Does this image tell a story about the brand? Does it evoke a lifestyle or feeling? Or is it just "product on white background"?

Score each 1-10. Minimum 8 across all dimensions for publication.
Identify the single biggest improvement that would elevate this image.

Video/Motion Content Review

You are a creative director reviewing video content for a brand's social channels.

Evaluate on:

1. HOOK (first 2 seconds): Would someone keep watching? What grabs attention — or doesn't?
2. PACING: Does the edit rhythm match the content and platform? Too slow = skip. Too fast = confusion.
3. VISUAL CONSISTENCY: Does every frame feel on-brand? Any jarring transitions, off-brand elements, or quality drops?
4. AUDIO/TEXT: If there's text overlay or audio, does it enhance or distract? Is it readable/audible?
5. CTA/ENDING: Does the video end with purpose? Does it drive the intended action (follow, click, share, buy)?

Score each 1-10. For video, emotional resonance matters more than technical perfection.

Building a Reference Library

Organized inspiration is the foundation of good creative judgment.

Folder Structure

reference-library/
├── merch/
│   ├── premium-examples/        # Best-in-class merch from brands you admire
│   ├── typography-focused/      # Type-forward designs specifically
│   └── anti-examples/           # Bad merch — annotate WHY it's bad
├── social-content/
│   ├── scroll-stoppers/         # Posts with exceptional engagement
│   ├── brand-voice-examples/    # Copy that nails a specific tone
│   └── anti-examples/           # Cringe brand content to avoid
├── product-photography/
│   ├── hero-shots/              # Best product photos in your category
│   ├── lifestyle/               # In-context, aspirational photography
│   └── anti-examples/           # Flat, stock-photo-vibes shots
├── brand-systems/
│   ├── [brand-name]/            # Full system screenshots per brand
│   └── ...
├── style-profiles/
│   ├── [brand]-aesthetic.json   # Extracted JSON style profiles
│   └── ...
└── failures/
    ├── our-failures/            # Everything we shipped that was bad
    └── lessons.md               # Root cause analysis for each failure

Extracting JSON Style Profiles

For any reference image you want to replicate the aesthetic of, use an LLM to extract a structured style profile:

Prompt:

Analyze this image and produce a detailed JSON style profile that captures its aesthetic DNA. Include:

{
  "color_palette": {
    "primary": ["#hex1", "#hex2"],
    "secondary": ["#hex3"],
    "background": "#hex",
    "text": "#hex",
    "accents": ["#hex"]
  },
  "lighting": {
    "type": "natural/studio/mixed",
    "direction": "description",
    "warmth": "warm/neutral/cool",
    "contrast": "high/medium/low",
    "shadows": "soft/hard/minimal"
  },
  "composition": {
    "layout": "centered/rule-of-thirds/asymmetric/etc",
    "focal_point": "description",
    "negative_space": "heavy/moderate/minimal",
    "depth": "shallow-dof/deep-dof/flat"
  },
  "typography": {
    "headline_style": "serif/sans/slab/etc",
    "weight": "light/regular/bold/black",
    "case": "uppercase/lowercase/mixed",
    "tracking": "tight/normal/wide/very-wide",
    "personality": "description"
  },
  "mood": {
    "primary_emotion": "description",
    "energy": "calm/moderate/energetic",
    "era_reference": "description",
    "cultural_reference": "description"
  },
  "texture": {
    "surface": "smooth/grainy/textured",
    "film_grain": "none/subtle/heavy",
    "imperfections": "none/intentional/natural"
  }
}

Be extremely specific with hex codes and descriptions. This profile will be used to generate new images in the same aesthetic.

Store these profiles in reference-library/style-profiles/. Use them as context when generating new creative — feed the JSON into your image generation prompts for consistent aesthetic output.

Anti-Pattern Documentation

For every failure, document:

## [Date] — [What Was Created]
**What happened:** [description]
**Why it seemed okay at the time:** [what fooled us]
**Why it's actually bad:** [specific problems]
**Root cause:** [the judgment failure — not just "it was bad"]
**Rule to prevent recurrence:** [new rule or checklist item]

The "why it seemed okay" field is critical. Understanding your blind spots is how you fix them.

The Brand Guardian Pattern

Inspired by Jasper's Brand IQ approach. Set up automated quality gates that catch violations before publishing.

Pre-Publish Guardrails Checklist

Create a brand-guardrails.md file in your workspace with these sections:

# Brand Guardrails

## Visual Rules (hard stops — violating any one blocks publishing)
- [ ] Colors match approved palette (list hex codes)
- [ ] Typography uses approved fonts only
- [ ] No AI-generation artifacts visible (weird hands, text distortion, uncanny faces)
- [ ] No misspelled text in images
- [ ] Logo usage follows guidelines (clear space, minimum size, approved lockups)
- [ ] Image resolution meets minimum for intended platform

## Voice Rules (hard stops)
- [ ] Copy matches brand voice guidelines (list specific traits)
- [ ] No off-brand language or tone
- [ ] No claims that violate legal/regulatory requirements
- [ ] No competitor mentions (unless intentional comparison content)

## Quality Rules (soft stops — flag for review)
- [ ] Passes 5-Point Creative Scorecard (all dimensions at minimum)
- [ ] Passes 10-Point Pre-Publish Checklist (8+ yes)
- [ ] Has been compared against reference library
- [ ] Would pass the "100K views" test

Brand Violation Detection

When reviewing content, scan for these common violations:

• Color drift: Hex codes look close but aren't exact. Use a color picker to verify.
• Font substitution: System font rendered instead of brand font. Check carefully.
• Voice inconsistency: Formal language in a casual brand. Slang in a premium brand.
• Visual inconsistency: Different filter/treatment than established content.
• Accidental claims: "Best," "guaranteed," "#1" without substantiation.

Automated Quality Gate Workflow

Integrate into your agent's publishing workflow:

1. Agent generates creative
2. Run Self-Refine Loop (score + fix, max 3 iterations)
3. Run Brand Guardrails Checklist (hard stops block, soft stops flag)
4. If all hard stops pass and scores meet minimums → auto-publish
5. If any hard stop fails → block and report specific violation
6. If soft stops flag → publish with note to review in next creative retrospective

The 7-Day Creative Training Curriculum

A structured week to systematically build creative judgment. Adapt brand references to your own context.

Day 1: Build the Foundation

• Create the reference-library/ folder structure (see above)
• Collect 50+ reference images from 5-6 brands you admire
• Write a style-guide.md for your brand covering: color palette (exact hex), typography (specific fonts, weights, tracking rules), photography style, composition rules, explicit "never do" list
• Write an anti-patterns.md documenting every past creative mistake with root cause analysis
• Deep-study 10 social posts from your top 2 aspirational brands. Write specific notes on what makes each one work.

Day 2: Build the Evaluation System

• Implement the 5-Point Creative Scorecard as a reusable template
• Customize the vision model evaluation prompts for your brand (replace generic descriptions with your specific aesthetic)
• Test the full Self-Refine Loop: generate a test image → run evaluation → iterate → score again
• Set up a creative-log.md for ongoing feedback tracking
• Run 3 existing pieces of your content through the evaluation system. Be honest about scores.