Ux Review

When to Use /ux-review vs /deep-review

Use both together for user-facing changes: /deep-review catches code-level issues, /ux-review catches experience-level issues.

When to Skip

Not every change needs a UX review. Skip when:

• The change is purely internal (refactor, performance optimization, test infrastructure) with no user-facing surface
• The change is a one-line bug fix where the UX impact is obvious and contained
• There is no goals.md and the user confirms the change has no UX dimension

When in doubt, run it — a quick "no UX findings" is cheap, a shipped UX bug is not.

Step 1: Gather Context

1. Read the goals doc at {scope}/goals.md — focus on the User Experience and Success Criteria sections. These are the spec you're reviewing against.
2. Get the diff using the target argument (same as /deep-review):
   • No argument: git diff --cached
   • all: git diff HEAD
   • branch: git diff main...HEAD
   • pr: gh pr diff
   • commit:SHA: git show SHA
3. Read all modified files in full — not just the diff hunks. Understand surrounding context for user-facing behavior.

Step 2: Identify User-Facing Changes

For each change in the diff, determine:

• What surface it appears on: editor, tree view, webview, quick pick, status bar, notification, command palette, context menu, terminal
• What triggers it: user action (click, command, keybinding), automatic (on file open, on repo change), event-driven (timer, external)
• What the user sees: before, during, and after the change takes effect

Filter out changes with no user-facing surface — note them as "no UX impact" and move on.

Step 3: Trace User Flows

Unlike /deep-review which traces code paths from the diff, trace user paths:

1. Start from the goals doc's UX section — this is the spec. The review checks the diff against it.
2. Walk each flow end-to-end — starting from the trigger described in goals.md through to completion. Note every point where the implementation diverges from the described experience.
3. Check what's NOT in the diff — missing implementations are UX bugs. If goals.md describes an error state and the diff doesn't handle it, that's a finding.

Step 4: Evaluate Against Seven Lenses

Not every lens applies to every change — skip lenses that don't apply and say so.

1. Flow Delivery

Does the implementation actually deliver the user flow described in goals.md?

• Happy path: Walk through the expected flow step by step. Does each step in the goals doc have a corresponding implementation? Are there gaps where the user would hit a dead end?
• Error paths: What does the user see when things go wrong? Is the error actionable ("couldn't find remote -- check your network connection") or opaque ("operation failed")? Does the error leave the user in a recoverable state?
• Edge cases: What happens with empty states, first-time use, missing data, concurrent operations, large inputs? Check the edge cases listed in goals.md -- are they handled?
• Entry/exit: Does the flow start from the right place (command palette, context menu, button, automatic trigger)? When it ends, does the user land somewhere sensible?

2. Feedback & Responsiveness

Does the UI communicate what's happening at every stage?

• Loading states: Operations that take time (git commands, API calls, file parsing) -- does the user see progress, a spinner, or at minimum that something is happening? Silence longer than ~200ms needs feedback.
• Success confirmation: When an action completes, does the user know it worked? Not every action needs a toast -- sometimes the UI updating is confirmation enough. But destructive or irreversible actions need explicit confirmation.
• Failure communication: When something fails, is the failure visible where the user is looking? A logged error the user never sees is not feedback.
• State transitions: When the UI changes state (loading -> loaded, editing -> saved, collapsed -> expanded), are transitions smooth or jarring?

3. Discoverability

Can users find and understand this feature?

• Location: Is the feature accessible from the right surface? (command palette, context menu, view action, editor gutter, status bar -- wherever the user would naturally look for it)
• Naming: Do command names, menu labels, and tooltips use language the user thinks in? Avoid internal jargon. A user searching the command palette should find this with the words they'd naturally type.
• First encounter: If this is a new feature, how does a user learn it exists? Is there a walkthrough step, a what's new entry, a contextual hint?
• Affordances: Do interactive elements look interactive? Do disabled elements explain why they're disabled (via tooltip or contextual message)?

4. Consistency

Does it feel like GitLens?

• Interaction patterns: Does this feature follow the same patterns as similar existing features? If GitLens already has a way to do something analogous, this should work the same way unless there's a clear reason not to.
• Terminology: Does it use the same words GitLens uses elsewhere for the same concepts? (e.g., "repository" vs "repo", "stash" vs "shelf")
• Visual language: Icons, tree item structures, webview layouts, quick pick formats -- do they match existing GitLens conventions?
• Behavior expectations: If the user has learned how one GitLens feature works, does that knowledge transfer to this one?

5. Workflow Integration

Does it fit into how people actually work in VS Code?

• Flow preservation: Does the feature keep the user in their flow, or does it yank them out of context? A modal dialog when a notification would do, or a full view switch when an inline indicator would suffice -- these are flow breaks.
• Reversibility: Can the user undo or back out? Destructive actions need confirmation. Multi-step flows need a way to go back or cancel.
• Composability: Does the feature work well alongside other VS Code features and other GitLens features? Does it conflict with common keybindings, monopolize panels, or break expected multi-repo behavior?
• Interruption cost: If the user is in the middle of something else (editing, reviewing, rebasing), does this feature interrupt them? Does it steal focus?

6. Information Design

Is the right information presented at the right time?

• Progressive disclosure: Does the UI show the essential information first and let the user drill into details? Or does it dump everything at once?
• Information hierarchy: Is the most important information the most visually prominent? In tree views, hover details, webview panels -- does the eye go to what matters?
• Density: Is the information density appropriate for the context? Tree views should be scannable. Detail panels can be richer. Quick picks should be concise.
• Empty states: When there's no data to show, does the user see a helpful message, or a blank void? Empty states are opportunities to guide ("No stashes yet -- use git stash to save work in progress").

7. Accessibility

Can all users use this feature effectively?

• Keyboard: Can every interaction be performed via keyboard? Tab order logical? Custom interactive elements have keyboard handlers?
• Screen reader: Do elements have appropriate ARIA labels, roles, and states? Do dynamic updates use live regions?
• Focus management: After actions that change the UI (open/close panels, navigate lists), is focus placed somewhere sensible? Modals trap focus?
• Contrast and theming: Does the feature respect VS Code's theme? No hardcoded colors? Works in high contrast themes?

Review Rules

• The goals doc's UX section is the spec — review against it, not your own UX preferences
• If the goals doc's UX section is incomplete, flag that as a finding, don't invent requirements
• Missing implementations of described user flows are UX bugs, not "future work"
• A technically correct feature that's undiscoverable is still a failure
• Do not evaluate code quality, performance internals, or test coverage — that's /deep-review and /review
• Do not evaluate visual design of webview CSS (layout, spacing, color) beyond theming compliance — that requires visual inspection of a running extension
• Do not run the extension or interact with it — this is a code-level review of user-facing behavior, not a manual QA pass

Output Format

Findings (ordered by severity)

For each finding include:

Then: what the user experiences, what they should experience instead, suggested fix.

Example Finding

lens: feedback | severity: high | confidence: confirmed location: src/commands/git/push.ts:142 -> push command error path

Issue: When push fails due to no upstream branch, the error is caught and logged but the user sees nothing -- no notification, no status bar update, no output channel message. The operation silently fails.

Expected: The user should see an actionable notification: "No upstream branch set for {branch}. Set upstream?" with a button to run git push --set-upstream.

Fix: Add a window.showWarningMessage in the PushError.is(ex, 'noUpstream') branch with an action button that runs the set-upstream command.

Required Sections

1. Findings — ordered by severity, using the format above
2. Flow walkthrough — the end-to-end user flow as implemented, annotated with where it matches and diverges from goals.md
3. Workflow impact summary — which existing user workflows this change touches and how they're affected. A change doesn't exist in isolation — identify the broader workflows that pass through the modified surfaces (e.g., a push behavior change affects commit->push->PR, stash->branch->push, etc.). For each impacted workflow: name it, describe what changed from the user's perspective, and flag whether the change is neutral, improved, or degraded.
4. What works well — UX strengths worth calling out
5. Open questions — things that need manual testing (interactions you can't fully evaluate from code alone)
6. Verdict — one of:
   • UX approved — the experience matches the intent
   • UX approved with follow-ups — minor issues that don't block merge
   • UX needs work before merge — the experience diverges from goals.md in ways that matter

If no issues found, say so explicitly, then list residual risks and open questions for manual testing.