design-audit

name

design-audit

description

Evaluate website, web app, landing page, or frontend implementation quality with a structured design audit and scoring grid. Use when Codex is asked to review UI design, visual hierarchy, UX, responsiveness, accessibility, performance perception, copy clarity, frontend polish, or to produce a design/frontend evaluation rubric for a URL, localhost app, screenshot, repository, or live page. Also use for re-audits that compare before vs after changes, track score deltas, and verify whether prior design/frontend issues were fixed.

Design Audit

Overview

Use this skill to inspect a website or frontend surface and produce a practical design audit: evidence, scores, concrete issues, and prioritized fixes. Prefer direct inspection of the running page whenever possible.

Use re-audit mode when the user asks to compare before/after, check improvements, re-run the audit after fixes, or verify whether a previous audit's issues were solved.

Language

Match the user's language for the entire audit. Support English and Italian explicitly.

• If the user writes in Italian, write headings, table labels, statuses, priorities, verdicts, category notes, and fix sections in Italian.
• If the user writes in English, write the audit in English.
• If the user mixes languages, use the dominant language of the request.
• Keep preset IDs unchanged (landing-page, saas-dashboard, etc.) so prompts and comparisons remain stable.
• Keep standard frontend terms in English when they are clearer or commonly used: CTA, focus state, keyboard navigation, layout shift, responsive, mock, hero, dashboard.

Italian label mapping:

• Overall -> Sintesi
• Scorecard -> Griglia
• Category Notes -> Note per Categoria
• Top Issues -> Problemi Principali
• Recommended Fixes -> Fix Consigliati
• Quick wins -> Fix Veloci
• Medium work -> Interventi Medi
• Deeper work -> Interventi Strutturali
• Re-Audit -> Rivalutazione
• Score Delta -> Delta Punteggi
• Fix Verification -> Verifica Fix
• Verification notes -> Note di Verifica
• Remaining Priorities -> Priorità Rimaste
• Next Fix Pass -> Prossimo Giro di Fix
• What works -> Cosa funziona
• What hurts -> Cosa penalizza
• Fix -> Fix
• Priority -> Priorità
• Confidence -> Confidenza
• Verdict -> Verdetto
• Excellent -> Eccellente
• Good -> Buono
• Needs work -> Da migliorare
• Weak -> Debole
• Critical -> Critico
• High -> Alta
• Medium -> Media
• Low -> Bassa
• Fixed -> Risolto
• Improved -> Migliorato
• Still open -> Ancora aperto
• Regressed -> Peggiorato

Workflow

1. Define the evaluation target:

   • Use the provided URL, localhost address, screenshot, or repository app.
   • If the target is local code, run the app when feasible and inspect it in a browser.
   • If only screenshots are available, state that interaction, responsive behavior, and runtime performance are partially inferred.
   • Select an audit preset before scoring. Infer it from the page/app when clear; otherwise ask the user to choose from a compact numbered list.

2. Gather evidence:

   • Inspect desktop and mobile widths at minimum.
   • Capture visible states relevant to the task: first viewport, navigation, primary flow, forms, modals, empty/loading/error states if available.
   • Check implementation details when repository access exists: semantic HTML, CSS organization, responsive constraints, component states, accessibility attributes, asset loading, and console errors.
   • Do not rely on visual impression alone when code or runtime inspection is available.

3. Score with the rubric:

   • Read references/rubric.md when producing a formal grid.
   • Apply the selected preset's emphasis and category choices.
   • Use 1-5 scores unless the user requests another scale.
   • Anchor each score to observed evidence, not generic best practices.
   • Call out uncertainty explicitly when a score depends on missing context.

4. Deliver the audit:

   • Start with the overall score and a short verdict.
   • Include a compact scorecard.
   • Include only the highest-impact notes and fixes by default.
   • When reviewing code, include file references for concrete frontend fixes.

Output Length

Default to concise output. The audit should be useful at a glance, especially in chat and demos.

• Keep the verdict to 2-3 short sentences.
• Use 5-7 scorecard rows, not every possible rubric category.
• Show category notes only for the 3 weakest or highest-impact areas.
• Keep each category note to What works, What hurts, and Fix, one short sentence each.
• List at most 3 top issues.
• List at most 3 recommended fixes by default.
• Avoid long paragraphs and repeated evidence.
• Expand only if the user asks for a deep audit, full audit, detailed report, or more detail.

Re-Audit Mode

When comparing before and after:

1. Identify the baseline:

   • Use the previous audit in the conversation when available.
   • If no previous audit is available, ask for the old audit, old screenshot, old URL, commit, branch, or written issue list. If the user cannot provide one, run a normal audit and state that deltas cannot be measured.

2. Reinspect the current target:

   • Use the same categories as the baseline when possible.
   • Inspect the same viewport types and flows where possible.
   • Separate real improvements from changes that only moved the problem elsewhere.

3. Report deltas:

   • Compare overall score and per-category scores.
   • Mark each prior issue as Fixed, Improved, Still open, or Regressed.
   • Localize status labels in the final output while keeping the underlying meaning stable.
   • Include new issues only after the before/after comparison.

Use this output shape for re-audits:

**Re-Audit**
Previous score: X.X/5
Current score: X.X/5
Delta: +X.X

Verdict: ...

**Score Delta**
| Area | Before | After | Delta | Status |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---|
| Visual hierarchy | 3/5 | 4/5 | +1 | Improved |
| Accessibility | 3/5 | 3/5 | 0 | Still open |

**Fix Verification**
| Previous Issue | Status | Confidence |
|---|---|---|
| CTA hierarchy unclear | Fixed | High |
| Mobile spacing inconsistent | Improved | Medium |

Verification notes:
- CTA hierarchy unclear: ...
- Mobile spacing inconsistent: ...

**Remaining Priorities**
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...

**Next Fix Pass**
Quick wins:
- ...

Medium work:
- ...

Keep re-audits comparative. Do not repeat the full original audit unless the user asks for a fresh full audit.

Keep Fix Verification narrow. Do not put evidence paragraphs inside the table. Use the table only for issue, status, and confidence; put evidence in short bullets under Verification notes.

Audit Presets

Use a preset to adapt the audit to the product type. Do not force the same criteria onto every site.

Available presets:

• auto: infer the best preset from the page, repository, URL, copy, and visible UI.
• landing-page: marketing pages, waitlists, product launches, SaaS homepages.
• saas-dashboard: admin panels, analytics, CRM, internal tools, operational products.
• portfolio: personal sites, agency sites, case-study collections.
• ecommerce: product pages, stores, checkout-oriented websites.
• mobile-first: mobile web apps, responsive experiences where mobile is primary.
• accessibility-heavy: audits where accessibility risk is the main concern.
• general: use when the target does not fit a specific preset.

Preset selection rules:

• If the user names a preset, use it.
• If the target clearly fits one preset, use it and mention Preset: ... in the output.
• If the target is ambiguous and the preset materially changes the audit, ask one short question before auditing:

Which preset should I use? / Che preset vuoi usare?
1. landing-page
2. saas-dashboard
3. portfolio
4. ecommerce
5. mobile-first
6. accessibility-heavy
7. general

• If the user says to proceed without choosing, use auto.
• For re-audits, keep the same preset as the baseline unless the user explicitly changes it.

Preset emphasis:

• landing-page: purpose, conversion, CTA clarity, trust signals, copy, first viewport, visual hierarchy.
• saas-dashboard: information density, navigation, workflow efficiency, component states, data readability, keyboard/focus behavior.
• portfolio: identity, case-study clarity, project hierarchy, credibility, contact path, visual distinctiveness.
• ecommerce: product clarity, purchase path, pricing/shipping clarity, trust, product imagery, checkout friction.
• mobile-first: mobile layout, touch targets, mobile nav, responsive hierarchy, performance perception, thumb-friendly flows.
• accessibility-heavy: semantics, headings, labels, contrast, keyboard navigation, focus states, alt text, screen reader noise.
• general: balanced scoring across the core rubric.

Scoring Rules

Use these meanings consistently:

• 5: Strong, production-level execution with only minor refinements.
• 4: Good execution with a few noticeable issues.
• 3: Functional but inconsistent, generic, or missing important polish.
• 2: Significant quality problems that affect comprehension, trust, or use.
• 1: Broken, inaccessible, visually incoherent, or not fit for purpose.

Use decimal averages only for the overall score. Category scores should stay whole numbers unless the user asks for more granularity.

Output Shape

For most audits, use this structure:

**Overall**
Preset: auto / landing-page / saas-dashboard / portfolio / ecommerce / mobile-first / accessibility-heavy / general
Score: X.X/5
Verdict: Strong / Good / Mixed / Weak

Short verdict in 2-4 sentences.

**Scorecard**
| Area | Score | Level | Priority |
|---|---:|---|---|
| Visual hierarchy | 4/5 | Good | Medium |
| Accessibility | 3/5 | Needs work | High |

**Category Notes**

Visual hierarchy - 4/5 [Medium]
What works: ...
What hurts: ...
Fix: ...

Accessibility - 3/5 [High]
What works: ...
What hurts: ...
Fix: ...

**Top Issues**
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...

**Recommended Fixes**
1. ...
2. ...
3. ...

Keep the scorecard narrow. Do not put long evidence paragraphs inside table cells; long text makes chat tables hard to scan and can overflow horizontally. Put detailed evidence in Category Notes instead.

Keep the default response compact. Do not include quick wins, medium work, and deeper work sections unless the user asks for a deeper implementation plan.

Use Level labels consistently:

• 5/5: Excellent
• 4/5: Good
• 3/5: Needs work
• 2/5: Weak
• 1/5: Critical

Localize Level labels with the language mapping above.

Review Standards

Judge the site against its apparent purpose. A SaaS dashboard, portfolio, ecommerce product page, documentation site, game, and marketing page should not be scored with identical expectations.

Prioritize:

• Clarity of purpose in the first viewport.
• Visual hierarchy and scannability.
• Layout rhythm, spacing, alignment, and responsive behavior.
• Interaction quality: controls, states, feedback, navigation, forms.
• Accessibility: contrast, focus states, semantic structure, keyboard use, labels.
• Frontend implementation quality: maintainability, performance perception, asset handling, console/runtime issues.
• Content quality: copy clarity, information architecture, trust signals, calls to action.

Avoid:

• Recommending decorative redesigns without tying them to user comprehension or task success.
• Over-scoring attractive pages that are inaccessible, slow, or hard to use.
• Penalizing minimal design when it serves the product well.
• Producing vague advice such as "make it modern" without concrete changes.

Resources

• references/rubric.md: Detailed scoring categories and evidence prompts.