skills/linkedin-infographic-review/SKILL.md

---
name: linkedin-infographic-review
description: Review a finished static or animated LinkedIn infographic before publishing. Check hierarchy, visual balance, dead space, generic UI patterns, copy, evidence, motion, rendering, and feed-scale legibility without redesigning unrelated content.
---

# LinkedIn Infographic Review

## Purpose

Run a focused pre-publish critique on an existing LinkedIn infographic. Diagnose what is blocking publication, separate required fixes from optional polish, and avoid turning review into an unrelated redesign.

## Inputs

Use the finished HTML, GIF, PNG, screenshots, caption, source material, or evidence the user provides.

If evidence required to validate a factual claim is unavailable, mark that claim as unverified instead of inventing support.

## Review order

### 1. Static composition

Inspect the full artboard before looking at small details.

Check:

- one dominant visual anchor is obvious within two seconds
- the page has a clear macro rhythm from hook to visual relationship to takeaway
- the composition is not top-heavy
- there is no unexplained dead zone near the footer
- the footer belongs to the composition instead of floating far below it
- text remains readable at feed scale
- copy density is solved through hierarchy and editing rather than tiny type

For a 1080x1350 artboard, treat an unexplained vertical gap greater than 120px between the main composition and footer/takeaway as a blocking warning unless negative space has an intentional visual job.

### 2. Perception tests

Run the smallest relevant set against the actual visual:

- **one-second hierarchy test**: identify the hook, primary anchor, and takeaway before reading supporting copy
- **100x100** thumbnail test: the main silhouette and hierarchy must survive at approximately 100x100 pixels
- squint or blur value-mass test
- **grayscale** hierarchy test
- negative-space audit: distinguish intentional framing from accidental dead space
- edge/crop/tangency review
- **brand-off specificity** test: without logos, the composition should still feel specific to this story
- **effect-subtraction** test: removing glow, shadows, 3D, texture, particles, and decorative motion must not remove the concept itself

A failure here does not automatically justify a full redesign. Identify the **smallest responsible dimension** and repair only that dimension.

### 3. Component grammar

Reject generic component patterns when they replace art direction.

Check:

- no more than two bordered containment levels
- repeated cards exist only when repetition is meaningful
- pills, badges, status chips, and tiny uppercase labels have semantic jobs
- no fake dashboards, fake analytics, fake proof bars, or invented metrics
- visual structure fits the story rather than the easiest HTML pattern

### 4. Copy and evidence

Check:

- one primary message
- hook is specific to the subject
- body copy adds mechanism, evidence, comparison, consequence, or action
- takeaway completes the idea instead of repeating the headline
- claims, numbers, logos, product states, and proof are supported by supplied material
- no generic filler or exaggerated marketing language

### 5. Motion when animated

Every meaningful animation must explain at least one of:

- what should I read next?
- what changed?
- where did this item travel?
- which state is active?

Fail decorative motion when it dominates the explanatory motion.
Fail `motion-on-weak-still` when the composition itself should be repaired before animation.

Inspect frame zero, a representative mid-state, the final state, and the loop seam.

### 6. Failure taxonomy

Return PASS or FAIL for each:

- `top-heavy-composition`
- `bottom-dead-zone`
- `nested-card-density`
- `generic-ui-grammar`
- `weak-macro-rhythm`
- `weak-visual-anchor`
- `footer-detachment`
- `motion-on-weak-still`
- `decorative-motion`
- `feed-scale-legibility`

### 7. Severity and pressure

Hard-gate failures remain blocking regardless of score. Classify additional craft findings as:

- `critical`: blocks immediately
- `major`: pressure 3
- `minor`: pressure 1

Block on any critical finding, two or more major findings, four or more minor findings, or **cumulative pressure** of 6 or more. Do not average away a serious defect.

Every non-PASS finding should state:

- severity and pressure
- visible evidence
- consequence at feed scale
- smallest responsible dimension
- exact repair action

Suggested responsibility routing:

- concept/message -> creative direction
- hierarchy/composition/negative space -> layout
- typography -> type
- Arabic/RTL -> Arabic direction when active
- brand/identity -> asset/brand
- copy density -> copy compression
- motion -> motion
- render/runtime -> render QA

## Output

Return:

1. verdict: `PASS`, `FAIL:fixable`, or `HOLD`
2. blocking findings
3. top three repair actions in priority order
4. severity counts and cumulative pressure
5. advisory polish, if any
6. evidence limitations
7. motion/render notes when applicable

Do not return PASS while a severe blocking finding remains or while the aggregate pressure threshold is reached. Do not redesign unrelated content.