earn-integration-review

Earn Integration Review (Vaults)

An orchestrated review of an Earn integration against the Morpho Integrator UX Playbook. You are the orchestrator: the per-foundation compliance agents do the check-level work — each agent carries its own checks and fail signals — and report back; you aggregate their verdicts into the rubric checklist, judge red flags, and deliver one report.

Baseline checklist: docs/rubrics.md — read it first. For Earn, the applicable rows are the Shared table plus the Earn table. Every applicable row appears in the final report, cited by its criterion (e.g. "fails Curator named").

Procedure

1. Scope the review. Identify what's being reviewed: a codebase (find the UI components, copy, and transaction logic), screenshots, or a written flow description. Collect the concrete artifact paths — the agents need them.
2. Spawn all seven compliance agents in one message so they run in parallel. Each gets: the artifact paths/context, the product ("Earn on Morpho Vaults"), and the instruction to run its checks and report verdicts.
   • morpho-integration:vocabulary-compliance — product vocabulary
   • morpho-integration:attribution-compliance — Powered by Morpho badge
   • morpho-integration:disclosure-compliance — disclosure gate
   • morpho-integration:rate-transparency-compliance — rate labelling, APY split, fee separation
   • morpho-integration:conversion-compliance — one-signature deposit, live preview, input affordances, benefits messaging
   • morpho-integration:clarity-safety-compliance — recap order, tooltips, warnings, vault transparency (name, curator, collateral, TVL/liquidity)
   • morpho-integration:discoverability-compliance — value prop, nudges, integrated position
3. While agents run, do the red-flag pass yourself — holistic judgments that need the whole flow in view, not a single row. Flag the flow as weak if any of these are true:
   • More than one signature for a single deposit.
   • The headline rate is below the fold or smaller than secondary details.
   • No live preview of the outcome as the user types.
   • Risk (low liquidity, withdrawal caps) surfaced only after confirmation.
   • A rate whose fixed-vs-variable nature is ambiguous on any screen.
   • Protocol jargon (shares, IRM, oracle scaling) in the primary flow instead of behind a tooltip or advanced reveal.
   • An idle-balance or eligible-asset prompt that doesn't lead to a CTA.
   • More than a tap or two to learn what a vault is exposed to, or who curates it.
4. Aggregate. Match each agent's named checks to the rubric rows in docs/rubrics.md — the names correspond one-to-one. Every applicable row must land a verdict; a row no agent could assess is UNVERIFIED, never guessed. If an agent contradicts your own observation, re-check the evidence — every verdict must be traceable to a file, screenshot, or quoted flow step.
5. Report in this exact structure — every Shared and Earn row appears once, split into the playbook's three goals using the rubric's Goal column (Compliance → Compliant; Conversion → Converts, grows TVL; Clarity and Discoverability → Smooth & discoverable), keeping rubric order within each group:

# Earn Integration Review

## Verdict
<one paragraph: overall state; count of Critical / Recommended / Nice-to-have failures>

## Compliant
| Criterion | Priority | Verdict | Evidence / Fix |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Approved vocabulary | Critical | PASS / FAIL / UNVERIFIED / N-A | <evidence for the verdict; for FAIL, the shortest fix> |
| ... every Compliance-goal row ... | | | |

## Converts, grows TVL
| Criterion | Priority | Verdict | Evidence / Fix |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ... every Conversion-goal row ... | | | |

## Smooth & discoverable
| Criterion | Priority | Verdict | Evidence / Fix |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ... every Clarity- and Discoverability-goal row ... | | | |

## Red flags
<any triggered flow red flags, with evidence>

## Launch self-review
<the checklist below, checked off from the findings>

Rules: every verdict needs evidence (full file path, screen, or quoted description); a single Critical failure means the integration is not launch-ready — say so plainly in the Verdict paragraph.

1. Launch self-review, checked off from the findings:
   • Is the language aligned (no staking / investment / guaranteed / risk-free)?
   • Is "Powered by Morpho" visible wherever users interact with Morpho functionality?
   • Is there a distinct moment where users acknowledge Morpho's disclaimer?
   • Is every rate clearly labelled variable?
   • Is the APY transparent about its components and the token each part pays in?
   • Can a user name the vault they're depositing into without leaving the flow?
   • Is the curator named somewhere a user will actually look?
   • Are the headline benefits (no lock-ups, autocompounding, non-custodial) visible on product detail?
   • Is there a path to learn more about Morpho from the product-detail screen?
   • Does deposit complete in a single signature where the protocol allows?
   • Do idle-balance prompts actually lead somewhere?