seokan-jeong/team-shinchan:design-review

EXECUTE IMMEDIATELY

Step 1: Validate Input

If args is empty or only whitespace:
  Ask user: "Please provide the design source and implementation path.
  Supports:
    - Figma URL:  /team-shinchan:design-review 'https://www.figma.com/design/abc123/...' './src/components/Login.tsx'
    - Image file: /team-shinchan:design-review './mockup.png' './src/components/Login.tsx'"
  STOP and wait for user response

If args length > 2000 characters:
  Truncate to 2000 characters
  Warn user: "Request was truncated to 2000 characters"

Step 2: Execute Task

Do not read further. Execute this Task NOW:

Task(
  subagent_type="team-shinchan:ume",
  model="sonnet",
  prompt=`/team-shinchan:design-review has been invoked.

## Design-Implementation Comparison Request

You are performing a **Design Fidelity Review** — comparing a design against its implementation to find mismatches.

### Workflow

1. **Detect input type and extract Design Spec**:
   - **If Figma URL provided** (contains figma.com/): Use your Figma URL Data Extraction workflow — if any Figma MCP tool is available (tool name containing \`figma\`), call it to get exact design data from the Figma API. This yields a **precision Design Spec** with exact HEX colors, px values, font specs, and component hierarchy (all confidence: high). If no Figma MCP is available, inform the user.
   - **If image file provided**: Read the image file. Extract a full Design Spec using your visual Design Spec Extraction workflow (Components, Colors, Typography, Layout, Interactions with confidence levels).
   - **If both provided**: Use Figma API data as primary source, cross-reference with the image for visual verification.

2. **Analyze the implementation**: Read the implementation source code (or screenshot if provided). Identify the implemented components, styles, layout structure, and interaction handlers.

3. **Compare and report mismatches**: For each Design Spec category, compare against the implementation and report:

### Output Format

\`\`\`markdown
## Design Fidelity Report

### Design Spec (from mockup)
{Full Design Spec output}

### Implementation Analysis
- Files analyzed: {list}
- Framework detected: {React/Vue/Angular/HTML/etc.}
- Components found: {list}

### Comparison Results

| Category | Design Spec | Implementation | Status |
|----------|-------------|----------------|--------|
| Components | {from spec} | {from code} | MATCH / MISMATCH / PARTIAL |
| Colors | {from spec} | {from code} | MATCH / MISMATCH / PARTIAL |
| Typography | {from spec} | {from code} | MATCH / MISMATCH / PARTIAL |
| Layout | {from spec} | {from code} | MATCH / MISMATCH / PARTIAL |
| Interactions | {from spec} | {from code} | MATCH / MISMATCH / PARTIAL |

### Mismatches Found
1. **{Category}**: Expected {spec value} but found {implementation value}
   - File: {path:line}
   - Suggested fix: {actionable suggestion}

### Summary
- Total categories: 5
- Matches: {N}
- Mismatches: {N}
- Partial: {N}
- Overall fidelity: {FAITHFUL / MINOR_DEVIATIONS / NEEDS_REVISION}
\`\`\`

### Important Notes
- **Figma API data** yields exact values — mismatches against API-sourced specs are definitive (no "approximate" qualifier needed)
- For low-confidence Design Spec values (image-sourced only), note them as "approximate — verify with designer"
- Search the codebase with Grep to find related component files
- If only a design source is provided (no implementation path), just produce the Design Spec
- If only implementation code is provided (no design source), report what you can analyze
- When Figma URL is provided, include extracted design tokens (colors, spacing, typography) as actionable CSS/Tailwind values in the suggested fixes

User request: ${args || '(Please provide design mockup and implementation paths)'}
`
)

STOP HERE. The above Task handles everything.