| name | ui-quality-audit |
| description | Run technical UI quality audits across accessibility, performance, theming, responsive behavior, and anti-patterns. |
Run systematic technical quality checks and generate a comprehensive report. Don't fix issues; document them for other commands to address.
This is a code-level audit, not a design critique. Check what's measurable and verifiable in the implementation.
Diagnostic Scan
Run comprehensive checks across 5 dimensions. Score each dimension 0-4 using the criteria below.
1. Accessibility (A11y)
Check for:
- Contrast issues: Text contrast ratios < 4.5:1 (or 7:1 for AAA)
- Missing ARIA: Interactive elements without proper roles, labels, or states
- Keyboard navigation: Missing focus indicators, illogical tab order, keyboard traps
- Semantic HTML: Improper heading hierarchy, missing landmarks, divs instead of buttons
- Alt text: Missing or poor image descriptions
- Form issues: Inputs without labels, poor error messaging, missing required indicators
Score 0-4: 0=Inaccessible (fails WCAG A), 1=Major gaps (few ARIA labels, no keyboard nav), 2=Partial (some a11y effort, significant gaps), 3=Good (WCAG AA mostly met, minor gaps), 4=Excellent (WCAG AA fully met, approaches AAA)
2. Performance
Check for:
- Layout thrashing: Reading/writing layout properties in loops
- Expensive animations: Casual layout-property animation, unbounded blur/filter/shadow effects, or effects that visibly drop frames
- Missing optimization: Images without lazy loading, unoptimized assets, missing will-change
- Bundle size: Unnecessary imports, unused dependencies
- Render performance: Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization
Score 0-4: 0=Severe issues (layout thrash, unoptimized everything), 1=Major problems (no lazy loading, expensive animations), 2=Partial (some optimization, gaps remain), 3=Good (mostly optimized, minor improvements possible), 4=Excellent (fast, lean, well-optimized)
3. Theming
Check for:
- Hard-coded colors: Colors not using design tokens
- Broken dark mode: Missing dark mode variants, poor contrast in dark theme
- Inconsistent tokens: Using wrong tokens, mixing token types
- Theme switching issues: Values that don't update on theme change
Score 0-4: 0=No theming (hard-coded everything), 1=Minimal tokens (mostly hard-coded), 2=Partial (tokens exist but inconsistently used), 3=Good (tokens used, minor hard-coded values), 4=Excellent (full token system, dark mode works perfectly)
4. Responsive Design
Check for:
- Fixed widths: Hard-coded widths that break on mobile
- Touch targets: Interactive elements < 44x44px
- Horizontal scroll: Content overflow on narrow viewports
- Text scaling: Layouts that break when text size increases
- Missing breakpoints: No mobile/tablet variants
Score 0-4: 0=Desktop-only (breaks on mobile), 1=Major issues (some breakpoints, many failures), 2=Partial (works on mobile, rough edges), 3=Good (responsive, minor touch target or overflow issues), 4=Excellent (fluid, all viewports, proper touch targets)
5. Anti-Patterns (CRITICAL)
Check against ALL the DON'T guidelines from the parent impeccable skill (already loaded in this context). Look for AI slop tells (AI color palette, gradient text, glassmorphism, hero metrics, card grids, generic fonts) and general design anti-patterns (gray on color, nested cards, bounce easing, redundant copy).
Score 0-4: 0=AI slop gallery (5+ tells), 1=Heavy AI aesthetic (3-4 tells), 2=Some tells (1-2 noticeable), 3=Mostly clean (subtle issues only), 4=No AI tells (distinctive, intentional design)
Generate Report
Audit Health Score
| # | Dimension | Score | Key Finding |
|---|
| 1 | Accessibility | ? | [most critical a11y issue or "--"] |
| 2 | Performance | ? | |
| 3 | Responsive Design | ? | |
| 4 | Theming | ? | |
| 5 | Anti-Patterns | ? | |
| Total | | ??/20 | [Rating band] |
Rating bands: 18-20 Excellent (minor polish), 14-17 Good (address weak dimensions), 10-13 Acceptable (significant work needed), 6-9 Poor (major overhaul), 0-5 Critical (fundamental issues)
Anti-Patterns Verdict
Start here. Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells. Be brutally honest.
Executive Summary
- Audit Health Score: ??/20 ([rating band])
- Total issues found (count by severity: P0/P1/P2/P3)
- Top 3-5 critical issues
- Recommended next steps
Detailed Findings by Severity
Tag every issue with P0-P3 severity:
- P0 Blocking: Prevents task completion. Fix immediately
- P1 Major: Significant difficulty or WCAG AA violation. Fix before release
- P2 Minor: Annoyance, workaround exists. Fix in next pass
- P3 Polish: Nice-to-fix, no real user impact. Fix if time permits
For each issue, document:
- [P?] Issue name
- Location: Component, file, line
- Category: Accessibility / Performance / Theming / Responsive / Anti-Pattern
- Impact: How it affects users
- WCAG/Standard: Which standard it violates (if applicable)
- Recommendation: How to fix it
- Suggested command: Which command to use (prefer: {{available_commands}})
Patterns & Systemic Issues
Identify recurring problems that indicate systemic gaps rather than one-off mistakes:
- "Hard-coded colors appear in 15+ components, should use design tokens"
- "Touch targets consistently too small (<44px) throughout mobile experience"
Positive Findings
Note what's working well: good practices to maintain and replicate.
Recommended Actions
List recommended commands in priority order (P0 first, then P1, then P2):
- [P?]
{{command_prefix}}command-name: Brief description (specific context from audit findings)
- [P?]
{{command_prefix}}command-name: Brief description (specific context)
Rules: Only recommend commands from: {{available_commands}}. Map findings to the most appropriate command. End with {{command_prefix}}impeccable polish as the final step if any fixes were recommended.
After presenting the summary, tell the user:
You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer.
Re-run {{command_prefix}}impeccable audit after fixes to see your score improve.
IMPORTANT: Be thorough but actionable. Too many P3 issues creates noise. Focus on what actually matters.
NEVER:
- Report issues without explaining impact (why does this matter?)
- Provide generic recommendations (be specific and actionable)
- Skip positive findings (celebrate what works)
- Forget to prioritize (everything can't be P0)
- Report false positives without verification
