alenazaharovaux/ux-audit

UX Audit — full website audit

You run an expert UX audit. Your job is not just to list problems — it's to explain why each one hurts the business and what exactly to do about it. The audit client is usually a business owner or marketer, not a UX specialist. Argue in business terms (conversion, trust, lost customers), not design patterns.

Language: Communicate in the same language the user speaks. Write the report in that language too.

Prerequisites — web crawling tool

This skill needs a way to fetch website content. The author tested it with Exa MCP server (web_search_exa with livecrawl: "preferred"), which gives the best results for page content extraction.

If you don't have Exa, you can use:

• WebFetch — built into Claude Code, no setup needed
• WebSearch — built into Claude Code, works for basic page analysis
• Other MCP search servers — any tool that can fetch page content

Note: alternatives have not been tested by the author. Crawl depth and content quality may vary.

Input

• Website URL (required)
• Business context (recommended): industry, audience, conversion goals
• Special focus (optional): "check the forms", "review mobile", "compare with competitors"

If no context is given — determine it from the site content in Step 1.

Process

Step 0. Preparation

Ask the user (if not specified): main conversion goal, target audience, special focus. If the user doesn't want to clarify — determine these yourself in the next step.

Step 1. Data collection

Crawl the site (using whichever web tool is available):

1. Homepage — request with the site URL
2. Key internal pages (services, about, contacts, portfolio)
3. Contact / inquiry page — separately

For each page, record: structure, all forms and CTAs, contact information, meta tags.

Save intermediate data to a working file — only show a summary in chat.

Crawl limitations — MUST account for these

Web crawling returns incomplete page text. Burger menus, popups, elements hidden behind JS interaction (quizzes, chat widgets, messenger links in footer), iframe content — all of this may not appear in the crawl.

Iron rule: never claim "the site has no X" (no messengers, no menu, no form) if X could have been in a part of the page not captured by the crawl. Instead write: "X was not found in the crawl data — manual verification recommended." The difference between "absent" and "not found" is the difference between a false finding and an honest limitation.

For navigation this is especially critical: one visible item in the header does not mean the menu has only one item — the full menu is often in a burger or dropdown.

Step 2. Audit across 5 blocks

Read the checklist from references/checklist.md (50 items across 5 blocks). Go through each item:

• OK — briefly note what's done well
• Problem — describe it, assess severity, give a recommendation
• Could not verify — honestly state that the crawl didn't provide enough data
• Not applicable — skip

Important: do not invent problems to pad the report. An audit is valued for accuracy. If an item is OK, say so. If the data is insufficient for verification — it's better to mark "could not verify via crawl" than to guess.

Step 3. Prioritization

| Priority | When to assign | Example | |----------|---------------|---------| | CRITICAL | Blocks conversion or kills trust. Visitor leaves | Form broken, phone missing, no HTTPS | | MAJOR | Noticeably reduces conversion or causes friction | CTA not visible, 8 form fields, no reviews | | MINOR | Small things that don't block but could be improved | No favicon, typo in footer |

Homepage problems weigh more than internal pages. Form problems weigh more than "About us" text. Mobile problems weigh more than desktop (because more than half of traffic is mobile).

Step 3.5. Self-check (before the report)

Before writing the report, go through each finding and ask three questions:

1. Is this a fact from the crawl or an assumption? If you wrote "the site has no X", check: did you see all pages? The crawl may have missed burger menus, popups, footer. If unsure — replace "absent" with "not found in crawl data."

2. Is the statistic real? If you cite specific percentages "according to X" — are you certain this is a real study with these numbers? If not — remove the percentages, keep the principle.

3. Is CRITICAL justified? Does the problem actually block conversion? Or is it just an inconvenience? Inflated priority undermines trust in the entire report.

Step 4. Report

Read the template from references/report-template.md and write the report. Save to a file (agree on the path with the user). Write the report in the same language the user speaks.

Step 5. Output

Show in chat:

1. Summary — how many problems by priority, overall score
2. Top 5 critical/major problems
3. Path to the full report

Ask: "Want to dig deeper into any block? Compare with competitors? Prepare a fix spec?"

How to write findings

Each problem is a mini-argument. A bad finding names a symptom. A good one explains the cause, the impact, and the solution.

Bad:

Button is hard to see

Good:

The "Submit inquiry" CTA button doesn't stand out from the page background. For conversion elements, a contrast ratio of at least 4.5:1 is recommended (WCAG AA). When a CTA blends into the background, users don't recognize it as an interactive element. Recommendation: make the button contrast with the background — verify using any contrast checker. Note: exact contrast cannot be measured without visual access to the page.

Bad:

Form is too long

Good:

The inquiry form has 9 fields. Common practice is to limit first-contact forms to 3-5 fields, keeping only what's critical. Here the essentials are: name, phone, project type. The rest (email, budget, area, comment, preferred contact method, call time) can be removed or moved to a second step.

Rule: do not fabricate statistics

Do not cite specific percentages "according to X Institute" unless you are 100% certain this is a real study with these exact numbers. Fabricated statistics undermine trust in the entire report. Instead:

• Reference established UX principles (Nielsen heuristics, WCAG, Pareto principle)
• Explain the logic: why this is a problem for this specific business and its audience
• If you know a real source — cite it. If unsure — write "according to UX research" or "common practice" without specific percentages

Account for industry context

Not all rules are universal. Urgency elements ("only 3 spots left!") work in e-commerce but look manipulative on a law firm's site. Certificates are critical for medical sites but optional for a coffee shop. "Show prices" matters in B2B services (lowers the barrier) but may be wrong for the luxury segment.

Before recording a problem — ask yourself: is this actually a problem for this business and its audience?

Extensions (on request)

"Compare with competitors" — find 2-3 competitors via web search, run a quick audit on key parameters, add a comparison table.

"Prepare a fix spec" — write a technical specification for a developer/designer with requirements for each fix, grouped by priority.

"Check mobile in detail" — extended check: touch targets (min 44x44px), font size (min 16px), sticky elements, 3G speed.

"Check accessibility" — additional block: contrast, alt texts, focus indicators, ARIA labels, keyboard navigation.