Synthesize contradictory stakeholder feedback in 90 seconds. Reverse-engineer competitor UI from screenshots. Catch design system violations before engineering does. Design with perfect recall.
Memory
The design review ended with 10 people talking over each other. The product manager wants bigger CTAs, the VP of engineering wants fewer animations, the CEO wants it to "feel more premium," and the accessibility lead flagged 3 contrast failures. With Slack connected, Kent already ingested the 47-message thread from #design-review the moment it happened. Combine that with the Zoom recording and 23 Figma comments and Kent has every piece of feedback attributed to the person who said it, identifies 4 genuine conflicts (PM vs. Engineering on animation), 6 points of actual consensus, and generates a prioritized revision list. You walk into the next standup with a clear plan instead of a migraine.
Kent output: "Consensus (6/10 agree): simplify the onboarding flow to 3 steps. Conflict: PM wants animated transitions, Engineering wants static. CEO and Design Lead both said 'premium' -- but CEO means 'more whitespace' while Design Lead means 'custom typography.' Recommendation: present 2 options at next review targeting the animation and typography decisions." You just turned chaos into a decision tree.
Visual
Your client says "we want something like what Stripe does." That is not helpful. But you screenshot 8 pages of Stripe's dashboard, drop them into Kent, and now it gets specific. Kent OCRs every element, identifies the type scale (3 sizes, all in the same family), maps the spacing system (8px grid, consistent), notes the color usage (2 accent colors, neutral grays, status colors only for data), and catalogs the component patterns (cards with subtle shadows, no borders, generous padding). You now have a concrete design language analysis, not a vague "make it like Stripe."
Screenshot 5 competitor onboarding flows. Kent analyzes: "Competitor A: 7 steps, progressive disclosure, estimated 4 minutes. Competitor B: single page, all fields visible, estimated 2 minutes but 34% of fields are optional and hidden below fold. Competitor C: conversational format, 5 steps. All three use email-first signup. None ask for company size before step 3." Your competitive analysis just wrote itself from screenshots.
Discovery
You connected your team's Notion workspace where the design system lives, so Kent always has the latest tokens and specs without anyone manually re-dropping files. Today you are designing a new feature and created a card component with 12px border radius. Kent's background discovery catches it: "Your design system specifies 8px border radius for cards (documented in Spacing and Radii, page 4). This new component uses 12px. Additionally, the shadow depth you used (0 2px 8px) does not match any of your 3 defined elevation levels. Closest match is Elevation 2 (0 2px 4px)." Your design system stays consistent not because you memorized every token, but because Kent did.
Kent notification while you work: "The button you just designed uses #0066CC for the primary action. Your brand guidelines specify #0071E3. These are visually similar but will fail automated design QA. Also, your secondary button uses 14px text while your design system specifies 16px minimum for interactive elements." Two catches that would have become engineering tickets in code review.
Voice
You just ran 8 user testing sessions back-to-back. You have handwritten notes on sticky pads, half-remembered quotes, and a vague sense that "everyone hated the settings page." Before the details fade, you start talking into Kent: "User 4 could not find the export button, she looked in the top nav first then the three-dot menu, took about 45 seconds. User 5 found it immediately but said it should be more prominent. User 6 did not even try to export, she assumed it was not possible..." Kent transcribes, extracts each user as an entity, tags findings by screen and severity, and generates a structured usability report with task completion rates.
After speaking for 20 minutes about all 8 sessions, Kent generates: "Export feature: 3/8 users failed to find (37.5% task failure). Navigation: average time to complete core task was 34 seconds (target: 15s). Settings page: 6/8 users expressed confusion about toggle labels. Recommended priority: 1) Relocate export button to persistent toolbar, 2) Rewrite settings toggle labels, 3) Add breadcrumbs to reduce navigation time." Your PM gets a report the same afternoon instead of next week.
Automation
Your product has 42 screens and the accessibility audit is due Monday. Manually checking each screen against WCAG 2.1 AA takes 20 minutes per screen, or roughly 14 hours. Drop screenshots of every screen and your component specifications into Kent before leaving Friday. Set a Ghost Mode rule: "For each screen, evaluate against WCAG 2.1 AA success criteria. Flag contrast failures, missing alternative text opportunities, keyboard navigation gaps, touch target sizes below 44px, and focus order issues. Organize by severity: critical, major, minor." Monday morning, you have a structured audit with every screen evaluated, organized by severity, with specific remediation recommendations.
Ghost Mode output: "42 screens audited. Critical: 3 screens have text contrast below 4.5:1 ratio (Login, Checkout, Error page). Major: 7 screens have interactive elements below 44px touch target (all use the SmallButton component). Minor: 12 screens have decorative images that should use aria-hidden. Recommended fix: update SmallButton component to minimum 44px height -- this resolves all 7 major issues in one change." One component fix instead of 7 screen-level patches.
Organization
You work with 6 clients simultaneously. Each has different brand colors, typography, voice, spacing rules, and feedback history. When Acme Corp says "make it pop," Kent knows they mean saturated gradients (based on 4 previous rounds of feedback). When FinanceApp says the same thing, Kent knows they mean increased whitespace and bolder typography (based on their brand guidelines and past approvals). Each client workspace contains the full history of every design decision, every piece of approved work, and every rejected concept with the reason it was rejected. You never accidentally present a concept that was already killed in Round 2.
Client asks: "Can we go back to what we had in Round 3?" You search your "Acme Corp" workspace for "homepage Round 3" and Kent pulls the design, the feedback notes from that round, and the specific reason it was revised in Round 4 ("CEO wanted less blue"). You present Round 3 with the blue concern addressed. The client feels heard. You did not spend an hour digging through Figma version history.
Join the wait list. Be first to know when Kent launches.
Start Designing with Kent