design-judge-skills

Match a design project to supported design-award programs, tracks, and entry categories; apply structural eligibility gates; verify current official rules; compare published criteria and cautiously described winner trends; and output fit, evidence confidence, and submission priority. Use when a user asks which award or category to enter, compares awards, or requests an award-fit analysis. Supports iF, iF Student, Red Dot Product, Red Dot Design Concept, IDEA, DIA, K-Design, GOOD DESIGN AWARD Japan, Core77, James Dyson, and EPDA. Do not use for winner retrieval alone, detailed submission-file compliance, general design evaluation, optimization, or winning-probability prediction.

Route and coordinate an end-to-end design-award workflow across winner research, evidence-based evaluation, award matching, entry-text preparation, and final submission checking. Use when a user asks for a complete award plan, does not know which Design Judge skill to use, wants multiple stages coordinated, or needs a resumable workflow with explicit handoffs. Do not replace the specialist skills, invent project facts, treat scores as winning probabilities, or bypass current official-rule verification.

Find and verify award-winning designs in the same or adjacent functional category through eight explicit relevance dimensions: problem and user, core function, sensing technology, intervention mechanism, physical form, use context and workflow, system architecture, and visual language. Use when a user asks for same-category winners, comparable precedents, design benchmarks, appearance-related award winners, or examples from iF Design, Red Dot, IDEA, or iF Design Student Award. Do not use this skill to score, judge, optimize, or match the user's design to an award.

Evaluate one design or a user-approved maturity-mapped batch through a transparent evidence-based rubric. Classify each work, score design quality and presentation, identify Critical risks, report evidence confidence, and optionally shortlist works within separate maturity tracks. Use when a user asks to judge, score, critique, review, diagnose, batch-evaluate, or rank designs by evidence-aligned evaluation score. Do not use this skill to retrieve winners, choose an award, produce a redesign, audit submission-file compliance, simulate an official jury, or predict winning probability.

Extract evidence-grounded project facts from user-provided design attachments, identify missing information, and prepare the exact written fields required by supported design-award entry forms. Use when a user asks to prepare, draft, adapt, translate, or validate application text for iF, iF Student, Red Dot Product Design, IDEA, DIA, K-Design, GOOD DESIGN AWARD Japan, Core77, James Dyson, or EPDA. Also use to build a reusable project dossier from briefs, decks, reports, manuals, patents, research, images, or prior application materials. Do not use for award selection alone, winner retrieval, design-quality scoring, final file-format auditing, or winning-probability prediction.

Shared support package for the Design Judge skill collection. Install it with design-award-search and design-award-match so those skills can read the canonical functional-design taxonomy and official award-source registry. Do not invoke it as a standalone design workflow.

Audit a design-award submission package against the current official rules for a specific award cycle. Check required materials and technical constraints, cross-material facts and claims, rights and disclosure risks, and final submission readiness. Use when a user asks for a pre-submission check, compliance review, missing-material audit, consistency check, or final go/no-go decision. Do not use this skill to choose an award, retrieve winners, judge the design itself, rewrite the whole entry, or give a legal clearance opinion.