docs: reconcile references to archived design docs (PRD backlog triage) (#371)
* docs: reconcile references to archived design docs after PRD triage The PRD/design triage archival (PR #365, #368) moved redesign-proposal-2026-05.md and icon-spec.md from docs/design/ into docs/processed/, but several active references were left dangling. Fix the broken paths in: - docs/design/visual-verification.md (relative link + two path refs; note the original redesign proposal shipped and is archived, with ongoing look-and-feel work tracked under the #357 design epic) - docs/responsible-ai/2026-05-25-initial-audit.md (icon-spec and redesign-proposal artifact paths) - .squad/skills/{design-visual-verification,editorial-site-redesign,icon-safety-check}/SKILL.md (functional references the design team relies on) Historical agent logs and decisions-archive intentionally retain their point-in-time paths. Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> * docs(rai): correct icon-spec description to robot-with-binoculars The processed icon spec documents a robot-with-binoculars design, not the earlier radar-sweep concept. Update the initial-audit Finding 1 artifact note and description to reflect the current spec (triage reconcile). Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Copilot <223556219+Copilot@users.noreply.github.com>
Juan Manuel Servera committed
Jun 11, 2026 at 09:36 UTC
af65a55ce1b219ed9ff6d93ae2052b6979b2056e
5 files changed
+13
-13
.squad/skills/design-visual-verification/SKILL.md
+3
-3
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ tools: []
9
10
## Context
11
12
-Before approving any frontend PR that changes layouts, typography, components, or theme tokens, Calculon runs a Playwright screenshot pass against the live Hugo preview of the PR branch. Screenshots are diffed against a baseline saved on `main`. Mismatches are compared against the acceptance criteria in `docs/design/redesign-proposal-2026-05.md`.
12
+Before approving any frontend PR that changes layouts, typography, components, or theme tokens, Calculon runs a Playwright screenshot pass against the live Hugo preview of the PR branch. Screenshots are diffed against a baseline saved on `main`. Mismatches are compared against the acceptance criteria in `docs/processed/redesign-proposal-2026-05.md`.
13
14
This skill was established 2026-05-25. Bump confidence to **medium** after it has been used successfully on 2+ PRs.
15
@@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ npx playwright test tests/visual/
71
72
### 4. Compare against acceptance criteria
73
74
-Open `docs/design/redesign-proposal-2026-05.md`. Each phase has an **Acceptance Criteria** section. For each viewport × theme screenshot, check:
74
+Open `docs/processed/redesign-proposal-2026-05.md`. Each phase has an **Acceptance Criteria** section. For each viewport × theme screenshot, check:
75
76
- Heading typescale matches spec (`--heading-xl`, `--heading-lg`, etc.)
77
- Accent color, bg, and text color match palette tokens
@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ Post a PR comment containing:
97
| `/yearly/2026/` | … | | | |
98
99
### Mismatches against spec
100
-- [ ] List any deviations from `docs/design/redesign-proposal-2026-05.md` acceptance criteria
100
+- [ ] List any deviations from `docs/processed/redesign-proposal-2026-05.md` acceptance criteria
101
102
**Decision:** ✅ Approved / 🔄 Changes requested
103
```
.squad/skills/editorial-site-redesign/SKILL.md
+2
-2
@@ -32,8 +32,8 @@ When redesigning an editorial or content-heavy website, the challenge is creatin
32
33
## Examples
34
35
-- `docs/design/redesign-proposal-2026-05.md` — full proposal with token tables, ASCII layouts, component specs
36
-- `docs/design/icon-spec.md` — icon narrative, SVG code, asset checklist
35
+- `docs/processed/redesign-proposal-2026-05.md` — full proposal with token tables, ASCII layouts, component specs
36
+- `docs/processed/icon-spec.md` — icon narrative, SVG code, asset checklist
37
38
## Anti-Patterns
39
.squad/skills/icon-safety-check/SKILL.md
+2
-2
@@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ Include in icon spec:
49
50
## Example
51
52
-See `docs/design/icon-spec.md` — Section 2 "Silhouette Safety Check" documents the robot-with-binoculars verification.
52
+See `docs/processed/icon-spec.md` — Section 2 "Silhouette Safety Check" documents the robot-with-binoculars verification.
53
54
## Promotion Criteria
55
@@ -60,4 +60,4 @@ Confidence → medium after:
60
## References
61
62
- Branding-safety directive: `.squad/decisions/inbox/copilot-directive-icon-ss-association.md`
63
-- Icon spec with example: `docs/design/icon-spec.md`
63
+- Icon spec with example: `docs/processed/icon-spec.md`
docs/design/visual-verification.md
+3
-3
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
1
# Visual Verification for Design Review
2
3
-> **Why this exists:** SquadScope has a 6-phase editorial redesign underway (issues #170–#177, spec at `docs/design/redesign-proposal-2026-05.md`). Each phase changes layouts, tokens, or typography. This doc explains how Calculon (Designer) catches regressions before they ship.
3
+> **Why this exists:** SquadScope's 6-phase editorial redesign (issues #170–#177) has shipped; the original proposal is archived at `docs/processed/redesign-proposal-2026-05.md`. Ongoing look-and-feel work continues under the design epic #357 and its children. Layout, token, and typography changes still need regression evidence. This doc explains how Calculon (Designer) catches regressions before they ship.
4
5
---
6
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ The redesign proposal defines explicit acceptance criteria per phase — heading
13
- Catch regressions automatically once a baseline exists
14
- Attach evidence screenshots to PR comments
15
16
-Related: [`docs/design/redesign-proposal-2026-05.md`](redesign-proposal-2026-05.md)
16
+Related: [`docs/processed/redesign-proposal-2026-05.md`](../processed/redesign-proposal-2026-05.md)
17
18
---
19
@@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ Snapshot baselines are saved to `tests/visual/snapshots/`.
104
105
1. **Checkout the PR branch**, start Hugo.
106
2. Run `node scripts/design/verify-visual.mjs`.
107
-3. Open the screenshots. Compare to the acceptance criteria table for the relevant redesign phase in `docs/design/redesign-proposal-2026-05.md`.
107
+3. Open the screenshots. Compare to the acceptance criteria table for the relevant redesign phase in `docs/processed/redesign-proposal-2026-05.md`.
108
4. Run `npx playwright test --config tests/visual/playwright.config.mjs` to get a diff count vs. baseline.
109
5. Post a PR comment (template in `.squad/skills/design-visual-verification/SKILL.md`) with:
110
- The summary table (✅ / ⚠️ per cell)
docs/responsible-ai/2026-05-25-initial-audit.md
+3
-3
@@ -25,10 +25,10 @@
25
26
**Severity:** info
27
**Principle:** Reliability & Safety, Accountability
28
-**Artifact:** `docs/design/icon-spec.md` (current file documents the **radar sweep** replacement, which is safe; the rejected SS-rune design is documented in project history but not in any current spec file)
28
+**Artifact:** `docs/processed/icon-spec.md` (current file documents the **robot with binoculars** replacement, which is safe; the rejected SS-rune design is documented in project history but not in any current spec file)
29
30
**Finding:**
31
-The old double-S monogram design was caught by the human user (jmservera), not by any agent or checklist. The icon-safety-check skill now exists (`.squad/skills/icon-safety-check/SKILL.md`), and the current radar-sweep spec is clean: concentric circles + sweep line + signal blip. No hate-symbol resemblance at any tested size or transformation. The silhouette at 16px is unambiguous (circle with radial line).
31
+The old double-S monogram design was caught by the human user (jmservera), not by any agent or checklist. The icon-safety-check skill now exists (`.squad/skills/icon-safety-check/SKILL.md`), and the current robot-with-binoculars spec is clean: a rounded-square robot head with a single antenna and two circular binocular eyepieces. No hate-symbol resemblance at any tested size or transformation. The silhouette at 16px is unambiguous (robot face with antenna and prominent circular "eyes").
32
33
**Why the catch was missed by existing process:**
34
No icon safety check existed in the team's workflow at the time Calculon proposed the original design. Calculon's design review skill (`design-visual-verification`) is focused on layout/contrast/typography matching — it does not include a hate-symbol silhouette screen. The failure mode is a classic **domain gap**: the aesthetic reviewer was optimizing for craft, not for adversarial misreading. A hostile viewer or bad-faith screenshotter can extract a thumbnail at 16px with ambiguous letterforms and the framing does the rest.
@@ -197,7 +197,7 @@ Neither W21 nor W22 explicitly discloses AI-assisted authorship anywhere in the
197
**Artifact:** `assets/css/tokens.css`, Phase 2 header (PR #185 merged)
198
199
**Finding:**
200
-Token contrast ratios as specified in `docs/design/redesign-proposal-2026-05.md` and confirmed in `assets/css/tokens.css`:
200
+Token contrast ratios as specified in `docs/processed/redesign-proposal-2026-05.md` and confirmed in `assets/css/tokens.css`:
201
- `--text` on `--bg`: 15.3:1 (light), 14.5:1 (dark) — ✅ AAA
202
- `--text-muted` on `--bg`: 6.1:1 (light), 7.3:1 (dark) — ✅ AA (≥4.5:1)
203
- `--accent` on `--bg`: 4.9:1 (light), 7.8:1 (dark) — ✅ AA (borderline in light mode; passes, but only by 0.4 ratio points)