// 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.
Create and send Gmail emails using draft-first workflow. Always draft first, get user approval, then send.
Systematically debug issues using graph-powered code navigation
Navigate and understand codebase structure using the knowledge graph
Plan and execute safe refactoring using dependency analysis
Perform a structured code review using change detection and impact
Design world-class product onboarding for SaaS applications that drives activation, reduces churn, and converts users. Use this skill whenever someone mentions onboarding, user activation, first-time user experience, aha moment, time-to-value, user signup flow, welcome experience, product tour, user activation funnel, trial conversion, or reducing churn through better first experiences. Also trigger when someone asks about empty states, getting-started flows, welcome screens, product walkthroughs, or improving new user retention. Even if they say "our users don't get it" or "people sign up but never come back" — that's an onboarding problem and this skill applies.
| 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 |
| user-invocable | true |
| argument-hint | [area (feature, page, component...)] |
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 | Theming | ? | |
| 4 | Responsive Design | ? | |
| 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: /animate, /quieter, /shape, /optimize, /adapt, /clarify, /layout, /distill, /delight, /audit, /polish, /bolder, /typeset, /critique, /colorize, /overdrive. 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.