Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
From Claude Kit
Quality rules for the /designer command: spec criteria, design checklist, approach evaluation, and anti-patterns to reduce plan-review iterations.
npx claudepluginhub hex0xdeadbeef/claude-kit --plugin claude-kitHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/claude-kit:design-rulesThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Guidelines for the /designer command to produce high-quality design specs that reduce plan-review iterations.
Collaboratively brainstorms architecture, patterns, and trade-offs to produce a design document. Activates on 'design this', 'create a design', 'brainstorm approaches', or 'write a design doc'.
Generates architecture/design documents from approved briefs with built-in problem exploration. Guides through proposal, approval, and transition to tasks. Use when starting a new feature or change that requires design decisions.
Guides structured design conversations for complex engineering tasks with depth modes (Quick, Standard, Deep), assumption surfacing, and decision matrices.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Guidelines for the /designer command to produce high-quality design specs that reduce plan-review iterations.
Read this SKILL.md for overview. Supporting files loaded on-demand per phase.
| 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-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 |
Cause: Task seems clear. Fix: Even "clear" tasks benefit from scope IN/OUT confirmation. At minimum, confirm scope.
Cause: Missing constraint not captured. Fix: Ask: "What constraint am I missing?" — don't generate more approaches without new information.