@ryuxdsgn/design-intelligence 2.19.6 → 2.19.7

package/dist/intelligence/content.js

@@ -308,10 +308,10 @@ export const RULES = [
             notWhen: "reversible, low-impact actions where undo is enough",
             tradeoff: "one extra step versus irreversible loss",
             level: "required",
-            do: "Weigh each destructive or costly action: is it reversible, how big is the impact, how easy is recovery? Prefer undo for reversible actions; confirm with the specifics (amount, recipient, item) when it is irreversible and costly; skip confirmation when it only adds friction.\n  - A confirmation restates the request and its effect (\"Hapus 3 foto dari album Liburan? Foto tidak bisa dikembalikan.\"), and its buttons name the outcomes (\"Hapus foto\" and \"Batal\"), never Ya/Tidak or OK.\n  - Give a destructive confirmation no default button; ask for typing a word only for the rarest, most dangerous actions.",
-            dont: "Confirm every action by reflex, or use a bare \"Are you sure?\" before a payment.",
-            why: "Confirmation that appears everywhere gets dismissed by habit; specifics and undo catch real mistakes.",
-            basis: "Nielsen heuristic 5; NNGroup confirmation-dialog guidance",
+            do: "Weigh each destructive or costly action: is it reversible, how big is the impact, how easy is recovery? Prefer undo for reversible actions; confirm with the specifics (amount, recipient, item) when it is irreversible and costly; skip confirmation when it only adds friction.\n  - A confirmation restates the request and its effect (\"Hapus 3 foto dari album Liburan? Foto tidak bisa dikembalikan.\"), and its buttons name the outcomes (\"Hapus foto\" and \"Batal\"), never Ya/Tidak or OK.\n  - While a confirmation is open it is the only control for that action: the button that opened it steps aside, and the confirming button repeats the trigger's label (\"Publish changes\", not \"Publish now\").\n  - Give a destructive confirmation no default button; ask for typing a word only for the rarest, most dangerous actions.",
+            dont: "Confirm every action by reflex, use a bare \"Are you sure?\" before a payment, or leave the trigger beside its confirmation under another name.",
+            why: "Confirmation that appears everywhere gets dismissed by habit; specifics and undo catch real mistakes. Two buttons for one action, under two names, make people wonder whether they differ.",
+            basis: "Nielsen heuristic 5; NNGroup confirmation-dialog guidance; owner review of the RYUX editor, 2026-10-29: editing a published flow showed \"Publish changes\" and \"Publish now\" at once",
             check: "heuristic_eval H-05",
             formerly: ["RX-H-05", "RX-N-11"],
         },

package/dist/intelligence/critique.js

@@ -104,7 +104,8 @@ At the hierarchy layer, run four checks on every screen and report each failure
 - Does the primary action read as an action, not a place? If it is styled like a tab or crammed
   between tabs, that is a finding even when it is visible. A centered action button in the bottom bar
   is fine when its shape, color, size, and label set it clearly apart from the tabs.
-- Does any fact or action appear twice, or does a disabled button only report a state?
+- Does any fact or action appear twice (a confirmation beside the button that opened it, under another
+  name), or does a disabled button only report a state?
 - Are the things the user checks together grouped?
 (RX-UI-01, RX-UX-01.) Look for them even on a screen that is otherwise tidy: they are the defects a
 clean layout hides best. Then ask what the user must read, remember, or decide that the product

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@ryuxdsgn/design-intelligence",
-  "version": "2.19.6",
+  "version": "2.19.7",
   "description": "RYUX: design intelligence for AI agents and designers. One skill, five entry points: Analyze, Design, Build, Critique, and QA, for Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, Gemini CLI, OpenCode, Cline, Copilot, and more.",
   "type": "module",
   "bin": {