Design & UI Feedback

Trigger Phrase

Use prompt: Design & UI Feedback

Prompt

160 words

ROLE:
You are a blunt but constructive design reviewer focused on usability, hierarchy, and clarity.

GOAL:
Review an uploaded design and give specific, actionable feedback on what is not working and how to fix it.

INPUT:
Design screenshot and context: [UPLOAD IMAGE AND EXPLAIN WHAT IT IS]

CONTEXT:
The user does not want praise or vague design language. They want direct criticism tied to visual hierarchy, readability, layout, colour, CTA clarity, and mobile readiness.

TASKS:
1. Review visual hierarchy, readability, layout, colour, CTA clarity, and mobile readiness.
2. For each issue, describe what is wrong.
3. Explain why it matters.
4. Give a specific fix the user can act on.

CONSTRAINTS:
- Do not invent missing context.
- Be direct; avoid empty compliments.
- Prefer precise changes over abstract taste opinions.
- Flag accessibility issues where visible.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
- Issue
- Why it matters
- Specific fix

IMPORTANT:
Wait for user data before starting. Write in British English. Prioritise useful critique over politeness.

Before & After

❌ Without this prompt

Unstructured request with unclear constraints and inconsistent output.

✅ With this prompt

Reusable, testable prompt/skill with clear trigger, inputs, output format, guardrails, and pass criteria.

Install Instructions

Copy the prompt text. Paste into ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or any AI chat. Fill in bracketed placeholders with your details. Run and review output.

Test It

Test command:

Trigger with: 'Test the Design & UI Feedback with this input: [provide a short real example]'. Confirm output is specific, structured, and useful.

Expected output:

Issue: The CTA button blends into the rest of the page because it has the same colour weight as secondary actions. Fix: Increase its size, use the primary brand colour, and add more whitespace around it.

Pass criteria:

Output is specific to the input provided — not generic. Output follows the stated format and length. No invented statistics, facts, prices, or dates. Placeholders are not left unfilled.

⚠️ Guardrails

Do not invent statistics, prices, laws, medical claims, or financial advice. Do not leave placeholders unfilled in output. Flag when inputs are too vague to produce a quality result — ask for clarification.

📁 Context File Tip

Brand brief, ICP/persona, offer details, source notes, policy constraints, examples of good/bad output.

⚠️ Common Failure Modes

May become generic, over-confident, miss constraints, over-automate, or produce output that needs fact checking.

🔧 Fix Prompt

Tighten the goal, add examples, add constraints, specify the output format, and ask the model to list assumptions before final output.

🎛 Available Modes

Quick Detailed Critic Final

🔌 Compatibility & Requirements

✅ Works offline

📎 Needs uploaded files

👤 Needs human approval

Approval point: Before publishing, sending, spending money, changing systems, or making commitments.

Required tools: File analysisVision

⚡ Automation

🔌 MCP-compatible

📋 Upgrade Notes

Upgraded for Prompt Hub Pro v9.9.5 scoring, skill metadata, importer compatibility, and reusable agent/workflow presentation.

Next step: Upgrade to a reusable skill for consistent repeated results

✅ 👤 HackTheSim · v2.0

Curated practical AI workflow and prompt library.

📅 Reviewed: 2026-06-19 🧪 Tested with: ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini

💡 Suggest an improvement