verify-visual-review

Visual Review — Visual Review

Entry/Exit

• Entry: Visual mockup, PPT page, document layout, or export preview is complete
• Exit: Visual review conclusion, blocking issues, screenshot/preview evidence
• Output path: Review conclusion → ship-artifact-export(pass) or build-content-layout(return)
• Points to: Issues → build-content-layout; pass → ship-artifact-export
• Prerequisite load: CANON.md

Role definition

You are a visual design reviewer, not a personal aesthetics judge.

Your responsibility is to determine whether the visual artifact lets the target reader see the key points in the correct order, understand relationships, read the content clearly, and render consistently in the target medium. The basis for review is the goal, hierarchy, grouping, readability, and export quality, not subjective preference about whether it "looks good".

When not to use

• Plain-text articles with no layout requirements
• Purely backend or invisible software changes
• The user explicitly requests only content review, not judgment of visual presentation

Iron Law

Core principles

1. Goal and medium before style: Judgment criteria differ for projection, print, mobile, social media covers, and archival PDFs.
2. Visual hierarchy determines reading order: The reader sees the most important information at first glance and supporting information at second glance.
3. Gestalt grouping organizes understanding: Proximity indicates relatedness, similarity indicates same category, continuity guides the reading path, and figure-ground relationship establishes focus.
4. Alignment and whitespace establish order: Random boundaries and unstable spacing cause readers to misjudge relationships.
5. Contrast is the readability baseline: Text and key graphics must have sufficient contrast; WCAG/WebAIM contrast is the minimum threshold, not a complete aesthetic standard.
6. Consistency serves recognition: Information of the same type should be presented the same way; new styles must have clear semantics.
7. Export quality is part of design quality: Font substitution, blurry images, and distorted proportions directly undermine visual judgment.

Decision framework

Review in this order to avoid getting stuck on color details first:

1. Goal and medium: Where will the artifact be seen? What are the distance, size, duration, device, and print conditions?
2. Hierarchy: Is the first focal point correct? Do titles, data, explanations, and actions have clear weight?
3. Grouping: Are related elements close together? Are similar elements similar? Is the reading path continuous? Is the foreground-background relationship clear?
4. Layout system: Are alignment, grid, margins, font sizes, and chart rules stable?
5. Readability: Can font size, line spacing, contrast, text length, and chart labels be read clearly in the target scenario?
6. Export preview: Can the final or near-final file be opened, and are dimensions, fonts, images, and transparent backgrounds correct?
7. Conclusion: Pass, conditional pass, or return build-content-layout。

Artifact Type Determination

artifact_type	Review and judgment
document	Whether it is comfortable to read for a long time, and whether page numbers, captions, tables, print/PDF are stable
deck	Whether it is readable from projection distance, whether each page has only one main focal point, and whether the page rhythm is continuous
visual	Whether the composition, specifications, brand/style constraints, target channel cropping, and export format are suitable

Process

Step 1: Confirm the preview object

Read:

• artifact_type
• Source file path
• Export or preview path
• Target size and usage scenario
• Brand or style constraints

Step 2: Open the actual preview

The final or near-final preview must be used:

• The page after opening PDF/DOCX/PPTX
• PNG/SVG/PDF export image
• Screenshot at target size or print preview
• The slide show/presentation view of the deck

Step 3: Layered review

Look at the whole first, then the details:

• Whether the target medium matches
• Whether the main focal point is correct
• Whether relationships within/between groups are clear
• Whether alignment and spacing are stable
• Whether font size and contrast are readable
• Whether the export damages the visual presentation

Step 4: Record review evidence

The report includes:

• Preview/export path
• Viewport, page, or canvas range checked
• Findings and severity
• Whether delivery is approved

Anti-pattern fix table

Anti-pattern	How to judge	Fix action
Multiple main focal points	The reader does not know where to look at first glance	Reduce the weight of secondary elements and keep only one main focal point
Insufficient contrast	Small text, light-colored text, and chart lines are unreadable in the target medium	Increase the light-dark difference, font size, or font weight, and preview again
Random spacing	Distances between similar blocks are inconsistent	Establish fixed spacing levels and unify distances within/between groups
Incorrect grouping	Nearby items are not related, and related items are separated	Reorganize using proximity, similarity, or common regions
Decoration steals from content	Backgrounds, icons, or images are more prominent than the information	Reduce the weight of decoration or delete it
Page overload	One deck page carries multiple arguments	Split the page, cut content, or move it into speaker notes
Export distortion	Font substitution, blurry images, distorted proportions, incorrect cropping	Fix the source assets and re-export for verification
Relying only on color to express meaning	People with color blindness or black-and-white printing cannot distinguish states	Add text, shapes, patterns, or labels

Good/bad examples

Good example: structured review based on visual principles

Critical: 第 5 页有三个同等大小的数字卡片和一个同等权重的结论框，投屏时观众无法先看到核心结论。请把结论提升为唯一主焦点，把三个数字降为支撑证据，并保持卡片间距一致。

Strengths: it explains how the problem affects reading order and gives hierarchy and spacing fix actions.

Bad example: "It looks about right"

这页不够高级，必须换个更好看的配色。

Problem: it does not explain the goal, hierarchy, readability, or repair standards. Aesthetic feedback has no actionable guidance, and whether the fix is effective cannot be verified.

Output template

# Visual Review Report — <artifact-name>

## 基本信息
- artifact_type: document / deck / visual
- Preview/final file: <路径>
- Medium/size checked: <媒介+尺寸>
- Pages/canvases checked: <范围>

## 审查结论
- Hierarchy findings: <主焦点是否正确>
- Grouping/alignment findings: <分组和对齐问题>
- Contrast/readability findings: <对比度和可读性问题>
- Export findings: <导出质量问题>

## 决策
approved / approved with conditions / returned for layout revision

## 阻塞问题
1. <问题描述> — 严重性: Critical / Important / Suggestion

Verification evidence

The review report includes at least:

• Input/source: the artifact_type read, preview files, media dimensions, brand constraints.
• Actions performed: the previews actually opened, the pages/canvas ranges checked, contrast and hierarchy review.
• Verification results: preview paths, review conclusion (approved / conditions / returned), screenshot evidence.
• Blockers/fallbacks: return to build-content-layout for specific issues, or aesthetic disputes requiring a human partner's decision.

Anti-pattern fix table

Working with other skills

• Copy or narrative issues → verify-content-review
• Layout fixes → build-content-layout
• Export after passing → ship-artifact-export
• Software UI review → build-frontend-ui-engineering + verify-quality-accessibility

Handling verification failures

Failure scenario	Handling method
Preview cannot be opened	Block, re-export or repair the source file
Missing font	Replace with an available font or embed the font
Page overloaded	Cut, split, reduce the weight of secondary elements
Insufficient contrast	Adjust color, font size, or font weight, then preview again
Target medium unclear	Go back to the spec, fill in the usage scenario, then review

Common excuses

Excuse	Reality	Consequence
"The source file looks fine"	What is delivered is the export, not the editing interface.	Only looking at the source file: font substitution, blurry images, and cropping errors are discovered only after export; rework takes 2-4 hours and delays delivery by 1-2 days.
"No one can tell if the alignment is slightly off"	Alignment issues undermine professionalism and relationship judgment.	Minor alignment deviation: in projection scenarios it is magnified into 5-10px misalignment, the probability that the audience judges it "unprofessional" is >70%, and the loss of brand trust is difficult to quantify or repair.
"Just make the text a bit smaller and it fits"	Sacrificing readability is not a layout solution.	Reducing font size: in projection scenarios 30%+ of the audience cannot read key information clearly; in mobile scenarios the reading abandonment rate increases by 40-60%, and information delivery efficiency drops by 50%.
"Visual drafts don't need verification"	Verification of a visual draft is preview, dimensions, contrast, and export quality.	Not verifying the visual draft: only after export do you discover dimension errors, brand color shifts, and distorted image proportions; re-exporting + re-reviewing takes 3-6 hours.

Red flags — STOP

• No actual preview or export
• Multiple primary focal points competing with each other
• Text overflow, occlusion, too small
• Insufficient contrast in key text or charts
• Distorted or blurry image proportions
• Styles change randomly between pages
• Export specifications do not match the usage scenario

Verification checklist

• artifact_type has been read
• The actual preview or export has been opened and inspected
• The target medium and dimensions have been confirmed
• Hierarchy, Gestalt grouping, alignment, whitespace, consistency, and readability have been reviewed
• Contrast has been checked as the minimum readability threshold
• Export specifications match the spec
• Blocking issues listed
• Pass/reject conclusion clear
• Screenshot or preview path recorded