mcpField
U
ux-review

ux-review

github.com/nickcrewDesign & UI62118 installsUpdated 18w ago
Repository

About ux-review

A UX review skill for teams assessing components, flows, and features before release or during UI/UX code reviews. It combines usability, WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility, and interaction-design checks, then prioritizes findings.

Key features

  1. 01Nielsen heuristic review
  2. 02WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility checks
  3. 03User-flow and cognitive-load analysis
  4. 04Interaction states and feedback review
  5. 05Prioritized findings report

Use cases

  1. 01Reviewing a feature before release
  2. 02Checking keyboard and screen-reader access
  3. 03Evaluating onboarding or checkout flows
  4. 04Assessing UI changes in a code review

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/nickcrew/claude-cortex --skill ux-review

After installing, type/ux-reviewin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Details

From the project README

UX Review

Comprehensive user experience review that coordinates usability, accessibility, and interaction design perspectives for thorough analysis of components, flows, or features.

When to Use This Skill

  • Reviewing new components or features before release
  • Evaluating existing flows for usability issues
  • PR reviews that touch UI/UX code
  • Design system component reviews
  • Onboarding flow or checkout flow optimization
  • Avoid using for purely visual/aesthetic reviews — use ui-design-aesthetics instead

Workflow

Step 1: Gather Context

Answer these questions before reviewing:

  1. What is the user trying to accomplish?
  2. What is this component's role in the larger flow?
  3. Who are the target users (personas, skill level)?
  4. What are the success criteria?
Step 2: Run Heuristic Scan (Nielsen's 10)

Evaluate the interface against each heuristic:

HeuristicCheck
Visibility of system statusDoes the user always know what's happening?
Match with real worldDoes it use familiar language and concepts?
User control and freedomCan users undo, go back, escape?
Consistency and standardsDoes it follow platform conventions?
Error preventionAre mistakes prevented before they happen?
Recognition over recallIs information visible rather than memorized?
Flexibility and efficiencyAre there shortcuts for expert users?
Aesthetic and minimalist designIs every element necessary?
Error recoveryAre error messages helpful and actionable?
Help and documentationIs guidance available when needed?
Step 3: Multi-Perspective Analysis
Usability Perspective
  • User flow: Is the path to completion clear and efficient?
  • Information architecture: Is content organized logically?
  • Cognitive load: Is the interface overwhelming?
  • Mental models: Does it work like users expect?
Accessibility Perspective (WCAG 2.1 AA)
  • Keyboard navigation: Can everything be done without a mouse?
  • Screen reader: Is the experience equivalent for assistive tech users?
  • Color contrast: Do all text/UI elements meet 4.5:1 ratio?
  • Focus management: Is focus order logical, visible, and never trapped?
<!-- Example: Accessible button with proper ARIA -->
<button aria-label="Close dialog" aria-describedby="close-hint">
  <svg aria-hidden="true"><!-- icon --></svg>
</button>
<span id="close-hint" class="sr-only">Press Escape to close</span>
Interaction Design Perspective
  • State coverage: Are all states handled (loading, empty, error, success)?
  • Feedback: Does the user know their action worked?
  • Transitions: Are animations purposeful and under 300ms?
  • Progressive disclosure: Is complexity revealed appropriately?
Step 4: Prioritize Findings

Categorize every finding:

PriorityCriteriaAction
CriticalBlocks usability or fails WCAG AAMust fix before release
HighSignificantly degrades experienceFix in current sprint
EnhancementImproves delight and efficiencyBacklog for next iteration
FutureLong-term improvementsTrack in roadmap
Step 5: Produce Review Report
## UX Review: [Component/Flow Name]

### Summary
[2-3 sentence executive summary]

### Critical Issues
- [ ] Issue 1: [Description, impact, WCAG criterion if applicable]
- [ ] Issue 2: [Description, impact]

### Recommendations by Category

#### Usability
| Finding | Impact | Recommendation |
|---------|--------|----------------|
| [Issue] | High/Med/Low | [Fix] |

#### Accessibility
| Finding | WCAG Criterion | Recommendation |
|---------|----------------|----------------|
| [Issue] | [2.x.x Level] | [Fix] |

#### Interaction Design
| Finding | Impact | Recommendation |
|---------|--------|----------------|
| [Issue] | High/Med/Low | [Fix] |

### Next Steps
1. Create issues for critical findings
2. Add accessibility requirements to acceptance criteria
3. Schedule follow-up review after fixes

Focus Area Deep Dives

Use --focus to narrow the review scope:

  • --focus=ux: User flow mapping, task efficiency, error recovery, learnability
  • --focus=a11y: WCAG 2.1 AA audit, keyboard nav, screen reader, contrast, focus management
  • --focus=interaction: State coverage, feedback timing, micro-interactions, animation review

Best Practices

  • Test with real content — Lorem ipsum hides information architecture problems
  • Check all states — Empty, loading, error, success, and edge-case states
  • Verify keyboard flow — Tab through the entire component without a mouse
  • Use browser dev tools — Lighthouse accessibility audit catches low-hanging fruit
  • Prioritize ruthlessly — A focused list of critical fixes beats a wall of suggestions

Comments

Markdown supported