Critique professional identity visuals for concept fit, craft, legibility and production readiness. Use only when the user asks for this skill by name.
Input: Exact visual assets/revisions under assets/ and the relevant brand/ brief and rules.
Scope: Critique conceptual fit and craft; do not edit assets or confer approval through a review.
Output: Findings in the response or mapped brand/ review record: asset references, evidence, priorities and unchecked items.
Establish the review
Identify the exact assets/revisions and current brief: goal, audience, usage, desired impression and constraints. Ask only missing context that changes the judgment. Review existing work without requiring a new discovery or creation cycle.
Inspect actual files/renderings; distinguish observed issues from assumptions. When you can view images, look at the renders. When you cannot, review from the SVG source (viewBox, geometry, stroke widths at target sizes, colours and contrast, text versus outlines), the brief and recorded checks, and list visual judgments such as silhouette, balance and resemblance under Unchecked: needs image review. Use only existing check scripts or simple file inspection; improvised image-analysis code is out of scope. Deliver the findings in one pass. If assets are inaccessible, report the limit and request what is needed rather than inventing findings.
Keep the review focused on professional identity and career applications. Leave factual claims and cross-surface compliance to audit; remain independently useful without those skills.
Assess
Check fit to the brief, distinctive recognition, simplicity, visual hierarchy, typography, spacing, palette and consistency within the asset set. Separate personal taste from functional failures and strategic mismatch.
For logos, inspect silhouette, negative space, monochrome/reversal, small-size legibility and unintended resemblance. Research a bounded relevant reference set when assessing similarity; do not claim uniqueness or trademark clearance.
For banners/compositions, inspect actual wording, hierarchy, contrast, target crops and safe areas. For vector/export readiness, inspect geometry, clipping, dependencies, dimensions and font/licence information when accessible. State actual tests; code validity alone is not visual approval.
Prioritize material issues over cosmetic preferences. Accept intentional, documented variations. Never demand a logo/full system when it is outside scope.
Return actionable findings
Give a concise overall assessment and prioritized findings. For each, identify the asset/revision, observed evidence, consequence for the intended use and a concrete correction. Record strengths worth preserving and unchecked items.
Use the user's existing review/decision record; do not create a mandatory report hierarchy. Do not overwrite assets, redesign or change approval status without authorization. Offer refinement via create-design-assets when appropriate, without requiring it.
Done when
Findings are tied to inspected assets and the brief, with actionable priorities.
Taste, evidence and access/verification limits are explicit.
No draft has been implicitly approved or modified by the review.