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: "Desk Artifact Launchpad" description: "A bright launch-page language built from a central bold message, softly textured paper ground, floating desk artifacts, and rounded utility cards." colors:... --- version: alpha name: Storybook L...
Refined
Home
--- version: alpha name: "Desk Artifact Launchpad" description: "A bright launch-page language built from a central bold message, softly textured paper ground, floating desk artifacts, and rounded utility cards." colors:...
SuperrBook
Home
--- version: alpha name: Storybook Learning Notebook description: A warm storybook learning-product language with ivory paper, chocolate serif typography, hand-drawn orange annotations, illustrated notebook scenes, meado...
Open exampleNatural
Home
--- version: alpha name: "Monospaced Agent Payments Canvas" description: "A sparse product-marketing system with mono typography, sharp micro-rectangles, and large quiet fields around tiny technical artifacts." colors: p...
Compare 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.
