roast

---

name: roast argument-hint: '' description: Brutally honest critique of a website — design, UX, copy, performance, a11y. Triggers: "roast" | "critique site" | "roast this site" | "roast https://" | "tear apart this website" | "honest critique" | "what's wrong with this site" | "rip apart" | "brutal feedback on this site". version: 0.1.0 allowed-tools: Bash, Read

Roast

Let: U := target URL PR := $PLUGIN_ROOT AB := agent-browser (preferred — adds snapshot -i for interactive refs) PW := uv run python scripts/screenshot.py (fallback — reuses web-intel's Playwright extra)

Scrape + screenshot U → deliver brutally honest, constructive critique.

Entry

/roast https://example.com

¬U → ask user to get one.

Step 1 — Locate Plugin

PLUGIN_ROOT=$(find ~/projects -maxdepth 4 -path "*/web-intel/pyproject.toml" -print -quit 2>/dev/null | xargs dirname)
if [ -z "$PLUGIN_ROOT" ]; then
  echo "ERROR: web-intel plugin not found. Install: claude plugin install web-intel"
  exit 1
fi

First Use

First invocation in session only:

cd "$PLUGIN_ROOT" && uv run python scripts/doctor.py

• exit 1 → show output, stop, guide install. Optional warnings → inform user, continue.
• Skip on subsequent invocations.

Step 2 — Scrape

cd "$PLUGIN_ROOT" && SSL_CERT_FILE=/etc/ssl/certs/ca-certificates.crt REQUESTS_CA_BUNDLE=/etc/ssl/certs/ca-certificates.crt uv run python scripts/scraper.py "$URL"

Step 3 — Screenshot

Tempfile per ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/../shared/references/tempfile-convention.md:

TMPDIR=$(mktemp -d -t "web-intel-roast-XXXXXX")
trap 'rm -rf "$TMPDIR"' EXIT
SHOT="$TMPDIR/screenshot.png"

∃ AB:

agent-browser open "$URL" && \
agent-browser wait --load networkidle && \
agent-browser screenshot --full "$SHOT" && \
agent-browser snapshot -i

¬∃ AB → PW fallback (web-intel already ships Playwright):

cd "$PLUGIN_ROOT" && uv run python scripts/screenshot.py "$URL" "$SHOT"

Neither available → skip, note in output.

Step 4 — The Roast

Be direct and specific — no "it could be improved." State exactly what's wrong and how to fix it.

#	Dimension	What to assess
1	First Impression	5-second hit — confusion? clarity? "WTF is this?"
2	Design & Visual	Layout, typography, color, whitespace, consistency
3	UX & Navigation	Understandable in 10s? CTA obvious? Mobile-friendly?
4	Copy & Messaging	Value prop clear? Buzzword soup? Real problems?
5	Performance	Heavy page? Slow loads? Bloated assets?
6	Accessibility	Semantic HTML, contrast, keyboard nav, alt text
7	Trust Signals	Social proof, pricing transparency, pro domain
8	Technical	Modern stack, SEO basics, Open Graph, structured data

Rate each: 🔥 great | 👍 solid | 😐 meh | 👎 needs work | 💀 oof

Overall Verdict: Grade A–F + Top 3 Fixes (highest-impact, do NOW) + ≥1 genuine positive.

Tone: Senior designer peer review — ¬internet troll. ∀ critique → specific fix.

$ARGUMENTS