Model Choice Panel Design Prompt

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

Required content and structure

Compare supplied model options by supported tasks, constraints and available settings.

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: warm white, ink text and restrained mint selected states; generous spacing and simple controls. Keep type, spacing and color roles consistent. Prioritize the task over decorative elements and avoid a generic collection of unrelated cards.

Content preparation

Gather the available models, supported tasks, relevant constraints and actual configuration options. Keep unknown performance or pricing information explicitly unknown.

Layout and behavior

Help the user compare choices for their task using consistent fields. Explain unavailable options and keep settings tied to the model that supports them.

Task-specific acceptance check

• Show unknown or unavailable information instead of fabricated benchmarks.
• Switch models after changing settings and test an unavailable model.
• Unsupported parameters should be explained or reset visibly rather than silently carried into an incompatible choice.

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 Model Choice Panel. 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: Compare supplied model options by supported tasks, constraints and available settings. Use the following task-specific layout guidance when translating the image into editable elements: Help the user compare choices for their task using consistent fields. Explain unavailable options and keep settings tied to the model that supports them.

Visual direction from the example brief

warm white, ink text and restrained mint selected states; generous spacing and simple controls.

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: Compare supplied model options by supported tasks, constraints and available settings. Show unknown or unavailable information instead of fabricated benchmarks. 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.