playbook/antigravity-awesome-skills/skills/yao-meta-skill/references/output-visual-quality.md

Output Visual Quality

Use this checklist before approving a generated skill that produces reports, tutorials, HTML pages, screenshots, Markdown deliverables, or slide-like artifacts.

Common Visual Failures

• generic headings such as Overview, Key Points, Summary, or Next Steps when the user's domain needs sharper section names
• large citation or footnote clusters that break sentence flow
• Markdown tables with paragraph-length cells or weak hierarchy
• screenshots captured from the wrong state, viewport, crop, or missing asset
• HTML reports that look like raw JSON converted into cards
• repeated cards with identical weight, making the page hard to scan
• decorative gradients, shadows, or glass effects that do not serve the content
• mobile layouts that collapse into long undifferentiated blocks

Design Quality Gates

P0 Must Fix

• no absolute /Users/... paths in final HTML
• no placeholder titles, labels, screenshots, or source notes
• no invented screenshots, charts, citations, or visual evidence
• no table with paragraph-length cells when bullets or cards would scan better
• no fixed design palette copied from another skill without content justification

P1 Should Fix

• title and section headings use domain nouns and the target outcome
• each report has one clear first-screen explanation of what it is for
• visual hierarchy separates decisions, evidence, risks, and next actions
• dense content is split across sections instead of squeezed into one block
• reviewer-only detail is present but not pushed into the user's main reading flow

P2 Polish

• typography roles are consistent
• whitespace rhythm supports reading speed
• cards, tables, and callouts are used for different semantic jobs
• source notes are grouped where they preserve flow
• mobile, print, and static-file viewing are considered when relevant

Self-Repair Pass

Before handoff, scan the generated artifact for:

1. heading specificity
2. table readability
3. citation density
4. screenshot truthfulness
5. local path leakage
6. placeholder remnants
7. mobile scanability
8. reviewer-visible evidence