audit

Run systematic **technical** quality checks and generate a comprehensive report. Don't fix issues — document them for other commands to address. Before scanning, read the existing design system (CSS / tokens / theme and a representative component) so "correct" is measured against the project's own conventions, not generic defaults. If the repo carries design context (`PRODUCT.md`, `DESIGN.md`, `.impeccable.md`, or a `## Design Context` block in `.github/copilot-instructions.md`), read it too. 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**: Animating layout properties (width, height, top, left) instead of transform/opacity - **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) Look for AI slop tells (generic indigo/violet palette, gradient text, dark glows, glassmorphism, hero-metric layouts, identical 3-card grids, generic geometric fonts) and general design anti-patterns (gray text on colored backgrounds, nested cards, bounce/elastic easing, redundant copy that restates a visible label). **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 or skill to use to fix it ### 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): 1. **[P?] `/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context from audit findings) 2. **[P?] `/command-name`** — Brief description (specific context) **Rules**: Map findings to the most appropriate available skill or command. End with a polish/cleanup step as the final recommendation 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 `/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 Remember: You're a technical quality auditor. Document systematically, prioritize ruthlessly, cite specific code locations, and provide clear paths to improvement.