Design Taste

Process discipline produces correct design. Taste produces design people love. This skill captures the subjective, aesthetic dimension that no checklist can replace — the difference between a design that works and one that sings.

Why This Exists

The Designpowers workflow verifies that designs are:

Aligned to the brief and plan
Accessible and inclusive
Consistent with design principles

But none of that answers: Is it beautiful? Does it feel right? Is it elevated?

Taste is the gap between compliance and craft. This skill gives agents a shared vocabulary and reference point for the aesthetic quality the project demands.

When to Use

After strategy, before design work begins (taste calibration)
When the user shares design references, screenshots, or inspiration
When the design-lead needs aesthetic direction beyond what the brief provides
When the design-critic needs to evaluate craft quality, not just plan compliance
When something "works" but doesn't feel right — and you need to articulate why

Process

Step 1: Gather Taste Inputs

This step is a conversation, not a form. Actively prompt the user — don't wait for them to volunteer. Most people have strong taste but haven't been asked the right questions. Your job is to draw it out.

1a: Check for an Existing Design System

Before asking subjective questions, check what already exists:

"Do you have an existing design system, style guide, or component library?"
"Can you point me to your tokens, brand guidelines, or any visual standards?"
"Is there a Figma file, Storybook, or design system documentation I should look at?"

If a design system exists, read it first. Extract the taste signals already embedded in it:

Token naming conventions reveal design philosophy (is it semantic or literal?)
Colour palette composition reveals restraint or vibrancy
Spacing scale reveals density preference
Border radius values reveal personality (sharp = authoritative, rounded = friendly)
Shadow system reveals depth philosophy
Typography pairings reveal voice

Document what the design system already tells you about taste before asking for more. The user shouldn't have to re-articulate what their system already expresses.

1b: Ask for the User's Own Thoughts

After reviewing any existing system, prompt the user for their subjective direction. Ask these directly — do not skip this step. The user's gut feelings and personal instincts are the most valuable input. Meet them where they are — not everyone speaks in design terms.

Prompt with these questions (adapt to context):

References — "Show me 2-3 designs you admire. What do you love about each? These can be websites, apps, physical products, even spaces — anything that has the feel you want."
Emotional target — "When someone uses this, what should it feel like?" (Examples: calm confidence, playful energy, quiet authority, warm invitation)
Anti-references — "Show me something you'd hate this to look like. What makes it wrong?"
Quality bar — "What level of polish are we targeting?" (Prototype → production → flagship)
Personality — "If this product were a person, how would they dress? How would they speak?"
What's missing from the current system? (If a design system exists) — "What do you wish your current design system did better? Where does it fall short of how you want things to feel?"

Not every question is needed. Read the room. If the user has strong visual instincts, lean on references. If they think in feelings, lean on emotional targets. If they have anti-references, those are often more revealing than positive ones.

Important: The user's subjective thoughts override what's in the design system. If the system says "sharp corners" but the user says "I want it to feel warmer," the taste profile should reflect the user's intent — and note the tension with the existing system as something to reconcile.

Step 2: Analyse the References

For each design reference the user provides, extract the specific qualities that make it work:

## Reference Analysis: [Name/URL]

**What makes this feel good:**
- [Specific quality] — e.g., "generous whitespace creates breathing room"
- [Specific quality] — e.g., "typography has a single accent weight, never competes"
- [Specific quality] — e.g., "colour palette is 90% neutral, 10% vibrant — the accent hits harder because it's rare"

**Craft details worth noting:**
- [Detail] — e.g., "borders are 1px at 8% opacity, not solid lines"
- [Detail] — e.g., "shadows use 2 layers: a tight sharp shadow + a soft ambient"
- [Detail] — e.g., "hover states use scale(1.02), not colour change"

**What to borrow (principle, not pixel):**
- [Transferable pattern] — e.g., "restraint in colour — let one accent do the work"
- [Transferable pattern] — e.g., "consistent radius vocabulary: 4px for inputs, 8px for cards, 16px for modals"

Step 3: Define the Taste Profile

Synthesise the references, emotional targets, and anti-references into a taste profile. This is the document that agents use when making aesthetic decisions.

# Taste Profile: [Project Name]

## Existing Design System
[If one exists: what it already tells us about taste — palette philosophy, spacing density, personality signals from tokens/components. If none: "No existing design system — building taste from scratch."]

### Taste Signals from the System
- Colour philosophy: [e.g., "restrained neutral palette with a single blue accent"]
- Density: [e.g., "generous spacing — the system breathes"]
- Personality: [e.g., "rounded corners (8px default) suggest approachability"]
- Typography voice: [e.g., "Inter for UI, serif for marketing — functional and warm"]

### Where the User Wants to Evolve
[What the user wants to change, extend, or push further from the existing system]

## Emotional Target
[2-3 sentences: what this should feel like to use]

## Aesthetic Principles
[3-5 principles specific to the visual/emotional quality, not functional design]

1. **[Principle name]** — [What it means]
   _Test: [How to evaluate whether a design decision follows this]_

2. **[Principle name]** — [What it means]
   _Test: [How to evaluate]_

## Quality Level
[Prototype / Production / Flagship]
[What this means in practice — e.g., "flagship: every pixel intentional, micro-interactions polished, typography refined to the point of invisibility"]

## References
| Reference | What to borrow | What to avoid |
|-----------|---------------|---------------|
| [Name] | [Specific qualities] | [What not to copy] |

## Anti-References
| Anti-reference | What makes it wrong for us |
|----------------|---------------------------|
| [Name] | [Specific qualities to avoid] |

## Craft Standards
[Specific details that define the quality bar]
- Shadows: [approach]
- Borders: [approach]
- Radius: [vocabulary]
- Colour usage: [restraint rules]
- Typography pairing: [rules]
- Whitespace: [philosophy — generous/tight/balanced]
- Animation: [personality — snappy/fluid/springy/minimal]

## Personality
[If the product were a person: how they'd dress, speak, move]

Save to: docs/designpowers/taste/YYYY-MM-DD-<project>-taste.md

Step 4: Add Taste to Design State

After the taste profile is created, update design-state.md:

Add a Taste Profile section after Design Principles:

## Taste Profile
- **Emotional target:** [2-3 words]
- **Quality level:** [Prototype / Production / Flagship]
- **Key references:** [names]
- **Aesthetic principles:** [list]
- **Taste document:** [path]

Record the taste calibration in the Decisions Log
Add the taste document to the Artefact Index

Step 5: Validate with the User

Present the taste profile and ask: "Does this capture what you're going for?"

The user's taste overrides everything. If they say "I want it to feel like Linear but warmer," that's the direction — even if the references suggest otherwise.

How Agents Use the Taste Profile

Once the taste profile exists, it becomes a reference document for the entire workflow:

Agent	How they use taste
design-lead	Makes aesthetic decisions that serve the emotional target and craft standards. References the taste profile alongside design principles
motion-designer	Matches animation personality to the taste profile (snappy vs. fluid vs. springy). Easing curves should feel like the product's personality
content-writer	Matches voice warmth/formality to the product personality. A "quiet authority" product doesn't use exclamation marks
design-builder	Implements craft details at the specified quality level. A flagship build polishes shadows, transitions, and spacing to the pixel
design-critic	Evaluates craft quality against the taste profile, not just compliance. "This meets the brief but falls below the quality bar" is a valid critique
accessibility-reviewer	Ensures taste decisions don't compromise access. Thin, elegant text is a taste choice that might fail contrast. Flag the tension, don't just override

Taste Is Not Arbitrary

Good taste is specific, consistent, and defensible. It is not "I like blue" — it is "blue at 12% opacity as a background tint creates the calm, clinical feel our medical app needs, referencing the quiet confidence of the references we chose."

Every taste decision should connect back to:

The emotional target (how it should feel)
The references (where the quality bar comes from)
The personas (who experiences it)

Taste that excludes people is not good taste. If a thin, delicate typeface creates the right mood but fails readability for low-vision users, find a typeface that does both. The constraint makes the design better, not worse.

Red Flags

Flag	Response
No references at all	Push gently. Even "I like how Apple does things" gives direction
References that contradict each other	This is fine — extract what's common, flag what conflicts, ask the user to resolve
Taste profile that violates accessibility	Find the version that serves both. Thin borders can be elegant AND meet contrast ratios. It's harder, but it's the job
"Just make it look good"	Not enough. Probe deeper: "Good like Stripe? Good like Notion? Good like a luxury hotel?" — taste needs specifics
Quality level doesn't match timeline	Flag the tension. Flagship quality takes time. If the timeline says prototype, the taste profile should reflect achievable craft

Integration

Called after: design-strategy (once principles exist, calibrate taste)
Called before: ui-composition, interaction-design, motion-choreography
Referenced by: design-lead, motion-designer, content-writer, design-builder, design-critic
Updated when: user provides new references, changes aesthetic direction, or overrides a taste decision

design-taste