Back to skills
SKILL.md
Design Lab
ASecurityUse when executing, coordinating, planning, or reviewing design lab agent workflows, cognitive loops, and architecture standards.
- 5 stars
- 0 votes
- 0 copies
- 0 views
- Added September 27, 2026
Works with
Security analysis
100/100npx -y skills add Harmitx7/tribunal-kit --skill design-lab --agent claude-codeAre you the author of Design Lab?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/harmitx7-design-lab)---
name: design-lab
description: "Use when executing, coordinating, planning, or reviewing design lab agent workflows, cognitive loops, and architecture standards."
version: 6.0.0
last-updated: 2026-09-29
skills:
- brainstorming
- shape
- frontend-design
tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash, Edit, Write
scripts-binding:
- .agent/scripts/auto_preview.js
- .agent/scripts/verify_all.js
- .agent/scripts/lint_runner.js
---
# Design Lab β Interactive Design Exploration & Variants
## Mandatory Pre-Flight Context Inspection
Before reading, generating, or refactoring code in the `design-lab` domain, inspect these 5 critical parameters:
1. **System Boundaries & Dependencies**: Verify that all required dependencies exist in target package manifests and environment paths.
2. **Runtime Context & Platform Invariants**: Confirm target platform constraints (Node.js, Browser, Mobile OS, Edge runtime) before applying APIs.
3. **Execution Guardrails**: Identify potential side-effects, state mutations, and unhandled asynchronous exceptions.
4. **Validation & Type Contracts**: Validate input data schemas and strict type constraints across all module interfaces.
5. **Observability & Proof of Execution**: Ensure execution produces tangible verification signals (terminal output, tests, metrics).
## Activation Boundaries
- **Activate when:** Use when executing, coordinating, planning, or reviewing design lab agent workflows, cognitive loops, and architecture standards.
- **DO NOT activate when:** The task falls outside the `design-lab` domain or is managed by a different dedicated specialist agent.
## π Multi-Pass Execution Protocol
| Pass | Phase | Core Action | Adaptive Depth |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Pass 1** | **Understand** | Deconstruct the user's explicit objective, implicit requirements, and platform constraints. | Fast / Standard / Deep |
| **Pass 2** | **Plan** | Decompose task into smallest logical steps; map dependencies, affected files, and tool calls. | Standard / Deep |
| **Pass 3** | **Execute** | Implement solution with production-grade craft, zero placeholders, and strict typing. | All Modes |
| **Pass 4** | **Verify** | Run linters, unit tests, or compiler checks to validate structural correctness. | All Modes |
| **Pass 5** | **Attack & Falsify** | Perform adversarial search for edge-case failures, counterexamples, race conditions, and traps. | Standard / Deep |
| **Pass 6** | **Harden** | Eliminate discovered friction, optimize performance, and harden error boundaries. | Standard / Deep |
| **Pass 7** | **Quality Gate** | Enforce Verification-Before-Completion (VBC) with concrete terminal proof before finalizing. | All Modes |
---
## π οΈ Technical Architecture & Reference Recipes
---
## 3 Design Lab Phases
### Phase 1: Context & Constraint Gathering
Ask 2 targeted questions to map out design direction:
1. What aesthetic tone fits best? (e.g. Minimalist Editorial vs High-Impact Brutalist vs Clean Corporate SaaS)
2. What component variants would you like to explore? (e.g. Card layout options A vs B)
### Phase 2: Generating Distinct Structural Variants
Generate 2 distinct visual variants (e.g. Option A: Centered Minimalist vs Option B: Asymmetrical Card Grid).
### Phase 3: Interactive Refinement
Synthesize feedback on preferred elements and build the polished final component.
## π¨ Edge-Case & Failure Mode Matrix
| Scenario | Risk | Production Mitigation |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Empty or Null Inputs** | Unhandled exception or unexpected rendering collapse | Enforce fallback guards, optional chaining, and explicit empty state handlers |
| **Network Timeout / Latency** | Hanging operations or duplicate side-effects | Implement bounded abort controllers, exponential backoff, and idempotency keys |
| **Concurrency / Race Conditions** | Stale state overwrite or inconsistent data mutations | Use atomic transactions, mutex locking, or cancel-on-resubmit controls |
| **Invalid Schema / Malformed Payload** | Downstream runtime errors or security injection | Validate boundary payloads with Zod/Pydantic schemas prior to execution |
| **Resource / Memory Saturation** | OOM errors, frame drops, or memory leaks | Clean up listeners, cancel active timers, and enforce pagination/virtualization |
## π€ LLM-Specific Traps Table
| Anti-Pattern | What AI Commonly Does Wrong | What Is Actually Correct |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Hallucinated Tool Capabilities** | Assuming an external library or CLI command exists without verification | Run a verification check or verify package.json before referencing tools |
| **Premature Completion Claim** | Declaring a task finished because code was generated without verification | Execute tests, linters, or terminal commands to provide concrete proof |
| **Context Bloat Dumping** | Pasting entire multi-thousand-line files into prompt context | Extract targeted excerpts, symbols, and signatures to preserve tokens |
## ποΈ Tribunal Verification & Guardrails
**Active Reviewers:** `orchestrator` Β· `agent-organizer` Β· `logic-reviewer`
**Slash Command:** `/review` or `/tribunal-full`
### π¬ Evidence Standard (Tri-State Verification)
Every finding, audit statement, or completion claim must classify its factual certainty:
- **`[OBSERVED]`**: Directly confirmed in the codebase or verified via executed terminal command.
- **`[INFERRED]`**: Logically deduced from code patterns, architectural data flow, or schema relations.
- **`[UNVERIFIED]`**: Speculative hypothesis or runtime possibility requiring active testing or measurement.
### β
Pre-Flight Self-Audit Checklist
```
β
Did I deconstruct the root objective before proposing architecture?
β
Did I identify dependencies, bottlenecks, and parallelizable sub-tasks?
β
Did I avoid over-engineering and select the simplest effective pattern?
β
Did I verify assumptions with concrete file reads instead of speculation?
β
Did I establish measurable verification criteria before completion?
```
### π Verification-Before-Completion (VBC) Protocol
**CRITICAL:** You must follow a strict "evidence-based closeout" state machine.
- β **Forbidden:** Declaring a task complete because the output "looks correct."
- β
**Required:** You are explicitly forbidden from finalizing any task without providing **concrete evidence** (terminal output, passing test suites, compiler success, or equivalent operational proof) that your output works as intended.
Attribution
Comments
Loading commentsβ¦