Menu
Use when reviewing a user-facing page or flow for usability issues, confusion, friction, or missed UX principles.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Based on SOC occupation classification
Use when auditing comments, docstrings, or embedded documentation prose in a scope — to strip bloat and rewrite cluttered-but-justified entries. Triggers on "audit comments", "clean up docstrings", "strip stale comments", "comment cleanup".
Use when the goal is to reduce code size, remove unnecessary complexity, or simplify a module without removing user-facing behavior.
Use when auditing and fixing end-to-end contracts and compatibility in a scope — HTTP/RPC APIs, events/messages, schemas, files, CLIs, libraries, configuration, database consumers, and external integrations. Triggers on "audit contracts", "API compatibility review", "schema compatibility audit", "check producer/consumer drift", "compatibility review", and "contract review". Performs an architecture-led review of semantic, backward, forward, and mixed-version compatibility; named interface classes are a minimum, never an exhaustive boundary.
Use when auditing and fixing logic bugs in a scope — off-by-one, wrong operator, inverted condition, unhandled boundary cases, unit/dimension mismatch, code that doesn't do what its name or docstring claims. Triggers on "audit correctness", "fix logic bugs", "check for off-by-one", "correctness review".
Use when auditing and fixing end-to-end data integrity in a scope — invariant violations, partial or conflicting writes, unsafe migrations/backfills, duplicate or reordered effects, precision or time corruption, stale derived stores, broken retention/deletion, and unrecoverable drift. Triggers on "audit data integrity", "review data consistency", "check migrations and invariants", "find data corruption", and related requests. Named risks are minimum, never exhaustive.
Use when auditing and fixing error handling in a scope — swallowed exceptions, defaults returned on error, optional chaining masking missing data, floating promises / missing awaits, entry points with no error boundary, resource leaks on error paths. Triggers on "audit error handling", "hunt silent failures", "fix swallowed errors", "check error boundaries", "missing await".
| name | ux |
| description | Use when reviewing a user-facing page or flow for usability issues, confusion, friction, or missed UX principles. |
| argument-hint | ["page path or URL"] |
page_path = $ARGUMENTS
page_path provided → focus on that page/component. Otherwise evaluate entire application UI.
Match evaluation depth to scope: single component → the 2-3 most relevant dimensions; full page → every applicable fundamental; entire app → 3 highest-traffic flows first (a whole-app sweep produces more findings than anyone acts on). Every applicable fundamental gets evaluated even when another lens overlaps it.
Gather context from at least one source, in order of preference: live browser navigation, screenshots, code review. Combine when available.
Apply the dimensions below.
!cat "${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/ui-evaluation.md"
Rate each evaluated dimension 1-5 (1=broken, 5=excellent). Compact table. Overall UX score = average.
Critical (blocks primary task): Issue → file:line → specific fix
High (major frustration): Issue → location → fix
What Works: Preserve these during fixes
Low (polish): Brief list
For each critical/high fix: what to test (user action) and what success looks like (behavior or outcome).
After presenting, offer to implement the top 3 critical/high fixes. Change nothing before the user accepts.
