Document Comment Review Design Prompt

Create an interactive frontend prototype using the existing project stack and explicitly labeled demo data for [PROJECT] and [AUDIENCE]. The task is: Document Comment Review.

Required content and structure

Anchor comments to content, support replies, resolve state and a review summary.

Use [APPROVED_CONTENT] as the source of names, dates, figures, claims and destinations. List missing inputs before substituting anything. If a demonstration is needed, label its content as fictional. Do not invent customer quotes, rankings, partner logos or product capabilities.

Design direction

Use [BRAND_RULES] and the design system already selected in the project. If no system is supplied, start with this direction: light neutral canvas, graphite text, cobalt accent and precise hairline separators; dense but legible hierarchy. Keep type, spacing and color roles consistent. Prioritize the task over decorative elements and avoid a generic collection of unrelated cards.

Content preparation

Define how comments attach to content, how replies work and what resolving a thread means. Include comments near content that may move or wrap.

Layout and behavior

Keep a visible connection between the selected thread and its anchor. Let users revisit resolved threads without cluttering the active review, and preserve drafts during navigation.

Task-specific acceptance check

• Maintain comment locations when layout changes and keep resolved threads accessible.
• Resize the document, edit text near an anchor and switch threads with a draft.
• Check that comments remain attached to the intended content and are not lost on resolution.

Implementation and review

Keep text editable. Use semantic structure, descriptive controls, visible keyboard focus and appropriate empty/error states. Check narrow and wide layouts. Respect reduced-motion preferences. Preserve any existing project framework and dependencies; do not silently replace the stack. Return the editable files and explain any incomplete behavior or unsupported inputs. Review this specific task before proposing extra features.

Reference attachment and reconstruction goal

Attach reference.webp from this prompt’s download bundle alongside this prompt in OpenDesign. Build an editable result with a similar composition and hierarchy; do not embed the whole reference image as the finished interface. Preserve approved project content and brand rules if they conflict with fictional sample labels. If the image is missing or unreadable, ask for it instead of claiming visual fidelity.

Reference composition and content

Use the attached reference.webp as the visual reference for Document Comment Review. Before building, identify the major regions from top to bottom, their relative widths and heights, alignment, spacing, typography hierarchy, surface colors, borders, imagery and repeated components. Preserve those relationships rather than substituting a generic template. Required task content: Anchor comments to content, support replies, resolve state and a review summary. Use the following task-specific layout guidance when translating the image into editable elements: Keep a visible connection between the selected thread and its anchor. Let users revisit resolved threads without cluttering the active review, and preserve drafts during navigation.

Visual direction from the example brief

light neutral canvas, graphite text, cobalt accent and precise hairline separators; dense but legible hierarchy.

Interaction specification

The reference is a static concept: the behavior below is a requirement to implement, not proof that the picture already works. Copy the customized prompt into your working project. Start with the core task: Anchor comments to content, support replies, resolve state and a review summary. Maintain comment locations when layout changes and keep resolved threads accessible. For each visible control, specify its trigger, affected state and feedback; implement local changes with consistent state across related views. Give search and filters real results, selection controls an explicit active state, and save actions visible pending/success/failure feedback where relevant. Do not add unrelated workflows. Use proper links for navigation, buttons for actions and accessible names for icon controls. Do not imply a backend operation succeeded when only a local demo changed.

Visual comparison and delivery

1. Compare the result with the attached image at matching proportions. Review major region placement, relative image sizes, line breaks, spacing, typography hierarchy, contrast, active states and content density before polishing decorative details.
2. Then test the narrow layout without squeezing desktop text into tiny labels.
3. Keep logos, photos and icons as separate assets and all meaningful labels editable. List any unavailable fonts/assets and any intentional departures. Return the working files plus a concise account of implemented behavior and remaining integrations; do not promise a pixel-identical result from the prompt alone.