shipshitdev/audit

Run systematic technical quality checks and generate the report below. Do not fix issues in this skill.

Before scanning, read the existing design system (CSS / tokens / theme and a representative component) so "correct" is measured against the project's own conventions, not generic defaults. If the repo carries design context (PRODUCT.md, DESIGN.md, .impeccable.md, or a ## Design Context block in .github/copilot-instructions.md), read it too.

This is a code-level audit, not a design critique. Check what's measurable and verifiable in the implementation.

Diagnostic Scan

Run checks across 5 dimensions. Score each dimension 0-4 using the criteria below.

1. Accessibility (A11y)

Check for:

• Contrast issues: Text contrast ratios < 4.5:1 (or 7:1 for AAA)
• Missing ARIA: Interactive elements without proper roles, labels, or states
• Keyboard navigation: Missing focus indicators, illogical tab order, keyboard traps
• Semantic HTML: Improper heading hierarchy, missing landmarks, divs instead of buttons
• Alt text: Missing or poor image descriptions
• Form issues: Inputs without labels, poor error messaging, missing required indicators

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)

2. Performance

Check for:

• Layout thrashing: Reading/writing layout properties in loops
• Expensive animations: Animating layout properties (width, height, top, left) instead of transform/opacity
• Missing optimization: Images without lazy loading, unoptimized assets, missing will-change
• Bundle size: Unnecessary imports, unused dependencies
• Render performance: Unnecessary re-renders, missing memoization

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)

3. Theming

Check for:

• Hard-coded colors: Colors not using design tokens
• Broken dark mode: Missing dark mode variants, poor contrast in dark theme
• Inconsistent tokens: Using wrong tokens, mixing token types
• Theme switching issues: Values that don't update on theme change

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)

4. Responsive Design

Check for:

• Fixed widths: Hard-coded widths that break on mobile
• Touch targets: Interactive elements < 44x44px
• Horizontal scroll: Content overflow on narrow viewports
• Text scaling: Layouts that break when text size increases
• Missing breakpoints: No mobile/tablet variants

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)

5. Anti-Patterns (CRITICAL)

Look for AI slop tells (generic indigo/violet palette, gradient text, dark glows, glassmorphism, hero-metric layouts, identical 3-card grids, generic geometric fonts) and general design anti-patterns (gray text on colored backgrounds, nested cards, bounce/elastic easing, redundant copy that restates a visible label).

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)

Generate Report

Audit Health Score

| # | 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)

Anti-Patterns Verdict

Start here. Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells. Be brutally honest.

Executive Summary

• Audit Health Score: ??/20 ([rating band])
• Total issues found (count by severity: P0/P1/P2/P3)
• Top 3-5 critical issues
• Recommended next steps

Detailed Findings by Severity

Tag every issue with P0-P3 severity:

• P0 Blocking: Prevents task completion — fix immediately
• P1 Major: Significant difficulty or WCAG AA violation — fix before release
• P2 Minor: Annoyance, workaround exists — fix in next pass
• P3 Polish: Nice-to-fix, no real user impact — fix if time permits

For each issue, document:

• [P?] Issue name
• Location: Component, file, line
• Category: Accessibility / Performance / Theming / Responsive / Anti-Pattern
• Impact: How it affects users
• WCAG/Standard: Which standard it violates (if applicable)
• Recommendation: How to fix it
• Suggested command: Which command or skill to use to fix it

Patterns & Systemic Issues

Identify recurring problems that indicate systemic gaps rather than one-off mistakes:

• "Hard-coded colors appear in 15+ components, should use design tokens"
• "Touch targets consistently too small (<44px) throughout mobile experience"

Positive Findings

List 1-3 implementation practices worth preserving, with file/component evidence. Omit this section when there is no concrete positive finding.

Recommended Actions

List recommended commands in priority order (P0 first, then P1, then P2):

1. [P?] /command-name — Brief description (specific context from audit findings)
2. [P?] /command-name — Brief description (specific context)

Rules: Map findings to the most appropriate available skill or command. End with a polish/cleanup step as the final recommendation 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 /audit after fixes to see your score improve.

Limit P3 findings to the top five unless the user asks for a complete backlog.

NEVER:

• Report issues without explaining impact (why does this matter?)
• Provide recommendations without file/component evidence and a fix path
• Skip positive findings (celebrate what works)
• Forget to prioritize (everything can't be P0)
• Report false positives without verification

Related

• accessibility — go deeper than dimension 1 when the request is WCAG conformance, ARIA, keyboard access, or screen readers.
• design-consistency-auditor — go deeper than dimension 3 when the request is token drift, hardcoded colors, or design-system divergence.