// Run technical quality checks across accessibility, performance, theming, responsive design, and anti-patterns. Generates a scored report with P0-P3 severity ratings and actionable plan. Use when the user wants an accessibility check, performance audit, or technical quality review.
| name | audit |
| description | Run technical quality checks across accessibility, performance, theming, responsive design, and anti-patterns. Generates a scored report with P0-P3 severity ratings and actionable plan. Use when the user wants an accessibility check, performance audit, or technical quality review. |
| version | 2.1.1 |
Invoke /impeccable — it contains design principles, anti-patterns, and the Context Gathering Protocol. Follow the protocol before proceeding — if no design context exists yet, you MUST run /impeccable teach first.
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.
Run comprehensive checks across 5 dimensions. Score each dimension 0-4 using the criteria below.
Check for:
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)
Check for:
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)
Check for:
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)
Check for:
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)
Check against ALL the DON'T guidelines in the impeccable skill. 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)
| # | 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)
Start here. Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells. Be brutally honest.
Tag every issue with P0-P3 severity:
For each issue, document:
Identify recurring problems that indicate systemic gaps rather than one-off mistakes:
Note what's working well — good practices to maintain and replicate.
List recommended commands in priority order (P0 first, then P1, then P2):
/command-name — Brief description (specific context from audit findings)/command-name — Brief description (specific context)Rules: Only recommend commands from: /polish, /typeset, /colorize, /quieter, /critique, /overdrive, /clarify, /bolder, /audit, /distill, /harden, /layout, /shape, /animate, /optimize, /adapt, /delight. Map findings to the most appropriate command. End with /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
/auditafter fixes to see your score improve.
IMPORTANT: Be thorough but actionable. Too many P3 issues creates noise. Focus on what actually matters.
NEVER:
Remember: You're a technical quality auditor. Document systematically, prioritize ruthlessly, cite specific code locations, and provide clear paths to improvement.
Evaluate design from a UX perspective, assessing visual hierarchy, information architecture, emotional resonance, cognitive load, and overall quality with quantitative scoring, persona-based testing, automated anti-pattern detection, and actionable feedback. Use when the user asks to review, critique, evaluate, or give feedback on a design or component.
Create distinctive, production-grade frontend interfaces with high design quality. Generates creative, polished code that avoids generic AI aesthetics. Use when the user asks to build web components, pages, artifacts, posters, or applications, or when any design skill requires project context. Call with 'craft' for shape-then-build, 'teach' for design context setup, or 'extract' to pull reusable components and tokens into the design system.