docs: Product Design 및 Figma 실행 계획 추가#413
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
Adds UI/UX documentation artifacts under docs/ui-ux to make Product Design work and a future Figma workflow more repeatable and easy to discover from the existing screenshot reference entrypoint.
Changes:
- Add an execution plan doc for turning current UI evidence into a Figma file + prototype workflow.
- Add a first-pass UX audit report grounded in existing screenshots and current frontend source.
- Update
docs/ui-ux/README.mdto link directly to the new plan + audit docs.
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 3 out of 3 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| docs/ui-ux/README.md | Adds an “Execution planning” section linking to the new plan and audit docs. |
| docs/ui-ux/product-design-figma-execution-plan.md | New execution plan describing scope, work packages, deliverables, and verification commands. |
| docs/ui-ux/product-design-audit.md | New UX audit report with findings, impacts, and recommended next steps. |
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.
Findings
1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency
- Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
- Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
- Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
- Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
- Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.
Summary
- Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
- Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
- Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (docs/ui-ux/README.md, docs/ui-ux/core-user-flow.mmd, docs/ui-ux/design-qa-checklist.md, docs/ui-ux/product-design-audit.md, docs/ui-ux/product-design-figma-execution-plan.md); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
5cd8f24c2cbe0e53b593a71779ef739f866dc59a - Workflow run: 28554296347
- Workflow attempt: 1
No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.
Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Docs (5 files)"]
S1 --> I1["operator or user guidance"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Docs (5 files)"]
R1 --> V1["docs review"]
OpenCode Review Overview
Pull request overviewOpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes. Findings1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency
Summary
No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers. Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line. Changed-File Evidence Mapflowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Docs (5 files)"]
S1 --> I1["operator or user guidance"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Docs (5 files)"]
R1 --> V1["docs review"]
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.
Findings
1. HIGH docs/ui-ux/README.md:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency
- Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
- Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
- Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
- Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
- Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.
Summary
- Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
- Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
- Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (docs/ui-ux/README.md, docs/ui-ux/core-user-flow.mmd, docs/ui-ux/design-qa-checklist.md, docs/ui-ux/product-design-audit.md, docs/ui-ux/product-design-figma-execution-plan.md); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
22228c4e4c274091f94a31b2a7104c5df228ad45 - Workflow run: 28554594695
- Workflow attempt: 1
No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Docs (5 files)"]
S1 --> I1["operator or user guidance"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Docs (5 files)"]
R1 --> V1["docs review"]
| - Modals should be centered, restrained, and form-first. | ||
| - The ERD editor should prioritize canvas space, toolbars, side properties, sharing, and export workflows. | ||
|
|
||
| Execution planning: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
HIGH OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency
- Problem: the model pool exhausted without a valid current-head review control block, so this changed line cannot be approved from deterministic check state alone.
- Impact: PR-intent mismatches, missing files, robustness bugs, UX/DX regressions, and CodeGraph-backed flow changes could be missed.
- Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or add the missing source/test/docs/generated verification evidence needed for a source-backed approval.
- Verification: rerun the OpenCode Review workflow and confirm it emits APPROVE or source-backed REQUEST_CHANGES for this head SHA.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.
Findings
1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency
- Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
- Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
- Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
- Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
- Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.
Summary
- Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
- Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
- Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (docs/ui-ux/README.md, docs/ui-ux/core-user-flow.mmd, docs/ui-ux/design-qa-checklist.md, docs/ui-ux/product-design-audit.md, docs/ui-ux/product-design-figma-execution-plan.md); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
aa49c02a254b4e8f76d44e2849de74e47b98416f - Workflow run: 28555043205
- Workflow attempt: 1
No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.
Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Docs (5 files)"]
S1 --> I1["operator or user guidance"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Docs (5 files)"]
R1 --> V1["docs review"]
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.
Findings
1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency
- Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
- Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
- Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
- Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
- Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.
Summary
- Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
- Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
- Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (docs/ui-ux/README.md, docs/ui-ux/core-user-flow.mmd, docs/ui-ux/design-qa-checklist.md, docs/ui-ux/product-design-audit.md, docs/ui-ux/product-design-figma-execution-plan.md); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
aa49c02a254b4e8f76d44e2849de74e47b98416f - Workflow run: 28555043205
- Workflow attempt: 2
No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.
Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Docs (5 files)"]
S1 --> I1["operator or user guidance"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Docs (5 files)"]
R1 --> V1["docs review"]
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.
Findings
1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency
- Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
- Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
- Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
- Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
- Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.
Summary
- Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
- Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
- Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (docs/ui-ux/README.md, docs/ui-ux/core-user-flow.mmd, docs/ui-ux/design-qa-checklist.md, docs/ui-ux/product-design-audit.md, docs/ui-ux/product-design-figma-execution-plan.md); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
e5562a8f617ebf8cc7d6ca852eaaef4bff457a58 - Workflow run: 28556662411
- Workflow attempt: 1
No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.
Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Docs (5 files)"]
S1 --> I1["operator or user guidance"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Docs (5 files)"]
R1 --> V1["docs review"]
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
OpenCode exhausted the configured model pool without a usable current-head review conclusion. This is not approval evidence, so the PR is blocked until a source-backed review can establish approval sufficiency or identify concrete fixes.
Findings
1. HIGH review evidence:1 - OpenCode could not establish approval sufficiency
- Problem: every configured model path failed to produce a usable current-head control block.
- Root cause: model execution, timeout, export, normalization, or approval-gate validation did not complete after exponential retry across the configured model pool.
- Impact: approving from deterministic check state alone would miss PR-intent mismatches, missing files, edge-case bugs, robustness gaps, UX/DX regressions, security issues, and CodeGraph-backed base/head flow changes.
- Fix: rerun OpenCode after model availability recovers, or update the PR with the missing files, tests, docs, generated artifacts, and verification evidence needed for a source-backed review conclusion.
- Regression test: keep the approval gate posting REQUEST_CHANGES, not APPROVE or check-only failure, when no model produces a valid current-head review.
Summary
- Result: REQUEST_CHANGES
- Reason: coverage-evidence passed and peer GitHub Checks completed without failures, but no model produced a valid review control block.
- Deterministic evidence checked but not used for approval: current-head changed-file evidence (docs/ui-ux/README.md, docs/ui-ux/core-user-flow.mmd, docs/ui-ux/design-qa-checklist.md, docs/ui-ux/product-design-audit.md, docs/ui-ux/product-design-figma-execution-plan.md); coverage-evidence result success; peer checks from statusCheckRollup excluding this OpenCode check.
- Model outcome: model_pool=exhausted; selected_model=none.
- Head SHA:
e5562a8f617ebf8cc7d6ca852eaaef4bff457a58 - Workflow run: 28556662411
- Workflow attempt: 2
No PR approval was posted because model-output failure is not evidence that the PR has no blockers.
Inline comment note: OpenCode could not find an added RIGHT-side diff line for this PR, so the model-exhaustion blocker is attached to the PR review body instead of a file line.
Changed-File Evidence Map
flowchart LR
PR["PR changed files"] --> Evidence["OpenCode bounded evidence"]
Evidence --> S1["Docs (5 files)"]
S1 --> I1["operator or user guidance"]
I1 --> R1["Review risk: Docs (5 files)"]
R1 --> V1["docs review"]
요약
01 Current References페이지에 docs/ui-ux의 9개 PNG 레퍼런스를 모두 이미지-fill 카드로 배치했습니다.02 Foundations에 로컬 변수, 텍스트 스타일, 효과 스타일을 만들고 향후 CSS custom property 이름을 기록했습니다.03 Components에 button, input field, ERD table node, status pill, toolbar button, share/export modal component set을 추가했습니다.04 Core Flow Prototype에 dashboard -> connection setup -> ERD editor -> share/export 화면 흐름과 주요 CTA click reaction을 추가했습니다.Figma / FigJam 산출물
검증
01 Current Referencesverified 9/9 screenshot slots asIMAGEfills withFITscale modeCurrent UI Referencesconfirmed all 9 cards render without missing images or label overlapON_CLICK -> NAVIGATEreactions for New diagram, Create snapshot, and Share/exportgit diff --checkgit show --check --stat --oneline HEADgit diff --check -- docs/ui-ux/README.md docs/ui-ux/design-qa-checklist.md docs/ui-ux/product-design-audit.md docs/ui-ux/product-design-figma-execution-plan.md참고