design-memory

Design Memory

Design memory is the system's understanding of your taste. Not a style guide — a living record of the aesthetic instincts, recurring preferences, and design convictions you've demonstrated across projects. Every project teaches the system something about how you see. This skill captures those lessons so you stop repeating yourself.

Welcome Gate

BEFORE loading or updating design memory, check whether the Designpowers welcome sequence has been shown this session. If the user has not yet seen the welcome (the bird, the greeting, and the walkthrough offer), you MUST invoke the using-designpowers skill FIRST and complete the welcome sequence before returning here. The bird must appear before any work begins. No exceptions.

When to Use

• At the start of any new project — load existing taste profile before discovery begins
• After any user override or correction — these are the strongest taste signals
• After design-critic or design-lead make decisions the user explicitly approves
• At project completion — extract and consolidate taste learnings
• When the user says something like "I always want..." or "I never want..." or "that's not me"

The Taste Profile

The taste profile lives at .designpowers/taste-profile.md in the user's home directory (cross-project) or in the project root (project-specific overrides). The home directory version is the canonical record. Project-specific overrides are temporary and scoped.

Structure

# Taste Profile

_Last updated: [date] from project [project name]_
_Projects contributed: [count]_

## Aesthetic Identity

### Visual Language
- **Palette tendency:** [e.g., "muted earth tones, avoids saturated primaries"]
- **Typography stance:** [e.g., "geometric sans for UI, serif for editorial — never decorative faces"]
- **Density preference:** [e.g., "generous whitespace, never cramped — willing to scroll"]
- **Shape language:** [e.g., "soft radius (8-12px), never fully rounded, never sharp"]
- **Imagery style:** [e.g., "photographic over illustrative, desaturated, real people not stock"]

### Interaction Style
- **Animation philosophy:** [e.g., "purposeful and subtle — no delight animations"]
- **Feedback approach:** [e.g., "immediate, quiet confirmation — no modals for success"]
- **Navigation preference:** [e.g., "flat structures, avoids deep nesting"]
- **Error handling tone:** [e.g., "direct and helpful, no humour in errors"]

### Content Voice
- **Tone range:** [e.g., "professional but warm — never corporate, never casual"]
- **Formality level:** [e.g., "uses contractions, avoids jargon, addresses user as 'you'"]
- **Vocabulary stance:** [e.g., "plain language advocate — reading level grade 8 or below"]

## Strong Opinions

Decisions the user has made repeatedly or emphatically. These are near-certain for future projects.

| Opinion | Strength | Evidence |
|---------|----------|----------|
| [e.g., "No hamburger menus on desktop"] | Strong (3 projects) | Overrode design-lead in Project A, Project C. Stated preference in Project B |
| [e.g., "Dark mode must be true dark, not grey"] | Strong (2 projects + explicit statement) | User said "I never want grey dark mode" in Project B |
| ... | ... | ... |

## Soft Patterns

Tendencies that have appeared but are not yet confirmed as strong opinions. These are suggestions, not constraints.

| Pattern | Occurrences | Context |
|---------|-------------|---------|
| [e.g., "Tends to prefer left-aligned over centered headings"] | 2 projects | Approved left-aligned in A, didn't comment in B |
| ... | ... | ... |

## Anti-Patterns

Things the user has explicitly rejected or corrected away from.

| Anti-Pattern | Evidence |
|--------------|----------|
| [e.g., "Gradient backgrounds"] | Rejected in Project A, replaced in Project B |
| [e.g., "Skeleton loading screens"] | "Just use a spinner" — Project C |
| ... | ... |

## Project History

| Project | Date | Key Taste Decisions | New Learnings |
|---------|------|--------------------|-|
| [name] | [date] | [2-3 key decisions] | [what we learned about taste] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |

Process

Loading Memory (Start of Project)

1. Check for existing taste profile at ~/.designpowers/taste-profile.md
2. If it exists, read it and present a summary to the user:

   "Based on previous projects, I know you tend toward [key patterns]. Any of these no longer true?"

3. Pass strong opinions to design-lead and design-strategist as constraints — they should not propose work that contradicts strong opinions unless they explicitly flag why
4. Pass soft patterns as suggestions — agents can reference them but are not bound by them
5. Pass anti-patterns as exclusions — agents should avoid these unless the user explicitly asks for them

Capturing Signals (During Project)

Listen for taste signals throughout the workflow:

Signal Type	Strength	Example
User override	Strongest	User changes colour the design-lead chose
Explicit statement	Strong	"I always want visible focus indicators"
Emphatic approval	Moderate	"Yes! That's exactly right"
Silent approval	Weak	User does not comment on a decision (do not record as preference until pattern repeats)
Correction	Strong (negative)	"No, not like that — more like..."

When a taste signal is detected:

1. Classify it (strong opinion, soft pattern, or anti-pattern)
2. Check if it reinforces or contradicts an existing entry
3. If new: add to appropriate section
4. If reinforcing: increase strength / add evidence
5. If contradicting: flag to user — "You preferred X in the last project but chose Y this time. Has your preference changed?"

Consolidating (End of Project)

When a project completes (after verification-before-shipping):

1. Review all decisions logged in design-state.md
2. Review all user overrides from the handoff chain
3. Extract new taste learnings
4. Update the taste profile:
   • Promote repeated soft patterns to strong opinions
   • Add new soft patterns from single-occurrence decisions
   • Add new anti-patterns from rejections
   • Update project history
5. Show the user what was learned:

   "From this project, I learned: [new learnings]. Your taste profile now has [X] strong opinions and [Y] soft patterns."

Integration With Agents

How Agents Use Memory

Agent	How they use the taste profile
design-strategist	References voice and content preferences when setting principles
design-lead	Treats strong opinions as constraints, soft patterns as starting points
design-scout	Filters competitive research through taste preferences — "you usually dislike X, but this competitor does it well because..."
motion-designer	References animation philosophy — if the user prefers subtle, don't propose elaborate choreography
content-writer	References tone, formality, and vocabulary preferences
design-builder	References interaction style preferences for implementation decisions
design-critic	Evaluates whether output matches known preferences — flags drift
accessibility-reviewer	Cross-references any taste preferences that might conflict with accessibility

Taste vs. Accessibility

If a taste preference conflicts with accessibility requirements, accessibility always wins. But flag it:

"Your taste profile says 'no focus indicators on clean UI elements,' but WCAG requires visible focus. I'll ensure focus indicators are present but styled to match your minimal aesthetic."

Conflict Resolution

When taste memory conflicts with a current project's needs:

1. Project context wins over historical preference — if the brief demands something the user usually avoids, the brief wins
2. Flag the tension — "Your taste profile prefers muted palettes, but this children's app brief calls for vibrant colour. Going with the brief — let me know if you want to adjust"
3. Never silently override taste — always explain when and why a known preference is being set aside

Integration

• Called by: using-designpowers (at project start), design-state (at project end)
• Reads from: design-state.md, handoff chain, user overrides
• Writes to: ~/.designpowers/taste-profile.md
• Informs: All agents via constraints passed at dispatch time
• Pairs with: design-discovery, designpowers-critique, design-retrospective

Anti-Patterns

Pattern	Why It Fails
Recording every decision as a taste preference	Most decisions are contextual, not taste. Only record decisions that reflect personal aesthetic judgement
Treating soft patterns as constraints	Soft patterns are hypotheses. They need more evidence before becoming constraints
Never updating the profile	Taste evolves. If a user contradicts a strong opinion, update it — don't cling to the old data
Overriding project needs with taste	The brief and personas come first. Taste is a tiebreaker and a starting point, not a trump card
Recording accessibility overrides as taste	If the user accepts an accessibility-driven change, that's compliance, not preference. Don't record "prefers visible focus indicators" just because they accepted a WCAG fix