Browse DESIGN.md examples that make component rules explicit through buttons, navigation, cards, variants, and state definitions.
What To Review
Compare how teams define reusable components, state logic, emphasis levels, and naming conventions so implementation becomes less ambiguous.
What To Compare
Look for state coverage, component naming clarity, variant strategy, interaction rules, and whether the system is strong enough to support repeated UI work without ad hoc decisions.
Design Analysis
--- version: alpha name: Editorial Agent Mail description: A white email-infrastructure language with oversized Cooper-style serif headlines, monospaced controls, violet CTAs, measurement-like pricing controls, and quiet... --- version: alpha name: Transparent...
AutoSend
Home
--- version: alpha name: Editorial Agent Mail description: A white email-infrastructure language with oversized Cooper-style serif headlines, monospaced controls, violet CTAs, measurement-like pricing controls, and quiet...
Open exampleUserJot
Home
--- version: alpha name: Transparent Product Feedback description: A calm SaaS product language with warm off-white spacing, black pill actions, orange editorial signals, and large framed product-window previews. colors:...
Open exampleZeabur
Home
--- version: alpha name: Dark DevOps Command Grid description: A dark technical product system with purple command accents, grid-lined infrastructure surfaces, compact console controls, and diagrammatic product cards. co...
Open exampleCompare how teams define reusable components, state logic, emphasis levels, and naming conventions so implementation becomes less ambiguous.
A focused collection makes it easier to compare how teams describe one system concern consistently across many examples instead of mixing unrelated signals on a single page.
