audit-domain-06-ux-a11y

name	audit-domain-06-ux-a11y
description	Audit the UI/UX and accessibility domain — error states, loading states, form validation, keyboard nav, ARIA, color contrast, mobile responsiveness. Run as part of /audit Phase E.

Skill: Audit Domain 6 — UI/UX & Accessibility

This skill audits one specific domain. It runs in an isolated subagent context spawned by the audit-orchestrator. The subagent loads this skill and the audit rules, runs against the audit scope, and returns a ~2K-token findings report.

Pre-flight

view @.claude/context/audit-rules.md

If you have findings from previous audit phases (hard stops, Tambon, blind spots), the orchestrator passes them as input. Use them — don't re-discover findings other phases already produced. Specifically:

• Hard stops related to this domain: H6
• Blind spots that route to this domain: B10

If the orchestrator didn't pass you these inputs, do NOT re-run the hard-stops or blind-spots walks. Audit your domain only and trust the orchestrator to stitch.

Scope

Error states, loading states, empty states, form validation feedback, keyboard navigation, ARIA labels, semantic HTML, color contrast, mobile responsiveness, internationalization readiness.

Key questions to answer

For each, find the evidence and report it. The questions are the audit's spine — every finding maps back to one of them.

1. Are error states designed (not just 'something went wrong')?
2. Are loading states present, or does the UI freeze during async ops?
3. Are empty states designed (not just blank screens)?
4. Is the app keyboard-navigable end to end?
5. Are interactive elements semantic (button, a, input — not div with onClick)?
6. Does color contrast meet WCAG AA?
7. Does the app work on a 320px-wide screen?

Files most likely to have findings

Don't read everything. Read these files first:

• form components
• error boundary / fallback components
• loading skeletons / spinners
• global layout / navigation

If you exhaust these and the budget allows, expand outward. Otherwise, report what you found and note what you didn't read.

Process

1. Re-read the rules. R1-R7 apply to every finding. Especially R2 (quote before cite) — for a domain skill running in a subagent, the subagent's context is fresh; don't assume you remember a file from a previous turn.

2. Walk the key questions. For each question, run the relevant detection commands (greps, file reads, schema lookups). Capture evidence at path:line. Verify by reading the actual code.

3. Cross-reference orchestrator inputs. If the orchestrator passed hard-stops or blind-spots findings tagged for this domain, include them in your report. Don't re-investigate; just include with the provided evidence.

4. Triage. For each finding, set severity per the audit rubric and exploitability per R4.

5. Produce the domain report.

Output format

═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
  DOMAIN 6: UI/UX & Accessibility
═══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════

▶ FOUNDER VIEW

[2-4 sentences in plain English. Sample tone:]
How does the app feel for a user who's tired, on mobile, or using a screen reader? Vibe-coded apps usually fail this hard.

▶ TECHNICAL EVIDENCE

Scope of this domain audit:
  Files read:        <count>
  Files skipped:     <count> (reason: outside scope or low-priority)

Findings:

  F-6.1 — <one-line title>
    Severity:        Critical | High | Medium | Low
    Exploitability:  EXPLOITABLE-NOW | EXPLOITABLE-LOW-EFFORT | BAD-PRACTICE | UNKNOWN
    Hard-stop:       H<N> if applicable
    Blind-spot:      B<N> if applicable

    Evidence:
      <path:line>  <one-line description>

    What's wrong:
      <one paragraph>

    Why it matters:
      <one sentence>

    Recommended fix:
      <one paragraph; for full fix prompt, use /audit-fix F-6.1>

    Verification after fix:
      <command>

  F-6.2 ...

Summary:
  Total findings: <count>
  By severity:    <counts>
  Most urgent:    <which finding ID>

[SECTION COMPLETE: Domain 6]

If the domain has zero findings:

▶ TECHNICAL EVIDENCE

  ✅ No findings in this domain.

  Verification:
    <commands run that produced no signal>

  Confidence: High | Medium | Low
  Reason for low confidence: <if applicable>

Failure modes to refuse

• ❌ Producing findings without path:line citations (R1)
• ❌ Citing a path you didn't read (R2)
• ❌ Re-running hard-stops or blind-spots walks (orchestrator did this)
• ❌ Including findings outside this domain's scope (route them to the right domain instead)
• ❌ Soft-pedaling a Critical to Medium because "it's a small app" (R3)
• ❌ Skipping section completion marker (R6)