Ux audit

UI/UX Audit Skill

A tiered audit that produces a prioritised, actionable report. A core six-framework audit runs by default; deep lenses (behavioural psychology, persuasion, classic usability, interaction-design principles) can be layered on when the user wants them.

On WCAG versions: This skill audits against WCAG 2.2, which is a superset of WCAG 2.1 — every 2.1 success criterion is included, plus 2.2's additions (e.g. Target Size Minimum, Dragging Movements, Focus Not Obscured). There is no separate "2.1" pass; auditing 2.2 covers it.

---

Step 0 — Gather Input

Determine what the user has provided:

Input type	Action
URL only	Use browser (Claude in Chrome) to navigate, screenshot, and extract DOM/text. Fall back to web_fetch if no browser available.
Screenshots + URL	Use screenshots as primary visual evidence; fetch URL for DOM/text data.
Screenshots only	Proceed with visual analysis only; note DOM-based checks are unavailable.

If browser is available (Claude in Chrome):

1. Navigate to the URL.
2. Capture a full-page screenshot.
3. Capture screenshots at mobile viewport (375px wide).
4. Extract page text (get_page_text) for copy/microcopy analysis.
5. Read the accessibility tree (read_page) for WCAG structural checks.

If browser is not available:

• Use web_fetch to retrieve page HTML/text.
• Clearly note which checks are visual-only estimates vs. DOM-verified.

Ask the user if scope is ambiguous:

• Single page or full site sweep?
• Specific user journey to focus on (e.g. onboarding, checkout)?
• Target audience or device context?

---

Step 0.5 — Choose Audit Depth (Core vs Deep Lenses)

The core audit (six frameworks) always runs. Beyond that, decide whether to add deep lenses.

Add a deep lens when:

• The user explicitly asks for it ("also check persuasion", "run a behavioural-psychology pass", "is this using dark patterns?", "audit cognitive load").
• The product type strongly calls for one (see mapping below) — in which case offer it, don't silently force it.

Lens-to-context mapping (use to offer the right lens):

If the product is…	Offer this lens	Because
Data-dense, enterprise, dashboard, analytics, AI tool	Classic Usability Extended (esp. Gerhardt-Powals)	Cognitive-load framing is where the real issues hide
A flow-heavy product (onboarding, checkout, search, signup)	Behavioural Laws	Hick/Fitts/Miller/Peak-end bite hardest on flows
Commerce, growth, conversion, subscription, marketing site	Trust & Persuasion	Catches both missed trust-building and dark patterns
A novel/custom interaction model or design-system work	Interaction Design Principles	Norman/Tognazzini test affordances and mental models

If scope is unclear, ask the user which lenses they want rather than running all of them — a 10-section report is exhausting and most sections would be redundant. Default to core-only unless there's a clear reason to expand.

When a lens is selected, read its reference file: → references/deep-lenses.md — Full checklists for all deep lenses, plus de-duplication guidance.

---

Step 1 — Run the Audit

Always evaluate the product against the core six frameworks. Read the reference file for detailed criteria: → references/frameworks.md — Full checklists for the core six frameworks.

Then run any selected deep lenses from references/deep-lenses.md. Follow that file's de-duplication guidance: do not restate a finding already raised under a core framework — cross-reference it instead, and surface only what is genuinely new through each lens.

For each framework and each active lens, assign:

• RAG Status: 🔴 Red (failing) / 🟡 Amber (partial / needs improvement) / 🟢 Green (passing)
• Score: X / 10
• Issues found: Each tagged with severity tier

Severity Tiers

Tier	Meaning
🔴 Critical	Blocks task completion, causes data loss, or creates legal/accessibility risk
🟠 Major	Significantly degrades experience; users likely to fail or abandon
🟡 Minor	Friction or confusion; workaround exists
💡 Suggestion	Enhancement opportunity; no active harm

Effort Estimates (per fix)

Label	Meaning
🟢 Quick Win	< 1 day; copy change, CSS tweak, attribute add
🟡 Medium	1–5 days; component refactor, layout change
🔴 Large	> 5 days; architectural or systemic change

---

Step 2 — Structure the Report

Output a markdown report using this structure:

# UI/UX Audit Report — [Product / URL]
**Date:** [today's date]
**Audited by:** Claude (AI-assisted audit)
**Scope:** [page(s) or journey audited]
**Input method:** [browser / screenshots / web_fetch]

---

## Executive Summary

| Framework | RAG | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Nielsen's Heuristics | 🟡 | 6/10 |
| WCAG 2.2 Accessibility | 🔴 | 4/10 |
| Gestalt Visual Design | 🟢 | 8/10 |
| UX Writing & Microcopy | 🟡 | 6/10 |
| Mobile / Responsive | 🟡 | 5/10 |
| Performance & Core Web Vitals | 🔴 | 3/10 |
| *— Deep lenses below (only if run) —* | | |
| Behavioural Laws | 🟡 | 6/10 |
| Trust & Persuasion | 🟢 | 7/10 |

**Overall Score: X / 10**  *(core frameworks only; deep lenses reported separately)*

**Top 3 Priority Fixes:**
1. [Most critical issue — one line]
2. [Second most critical]
3. [Third]

---

## 1. Nielsen's 10 Heuristics
**RAG: 🟡 Amber | Score: 6/10**

### Issues

#### [Issue Title]
- **Severity:** 🟠 Major
- **Heuristic violated:** #4 — Consistency and Standards
- **Observation:** [What was observed and why it's a problem]
- **Fix:** [Specific, actionable recommendation]
- **Effort:** 🟢 Quick Win

[Repeat for each issue]

### Positives
- [What the product does well under this framework]

---

## 2. WCAG 2.2 Accessibility
[Same structure]

## 3. Gestalt Visual Design
[Same structure]

## 4. UX Writing & Microcopy
[Same structure]

## 5. Mobile / Responsive Behaviour
[Same structure]

## 6. Performance & Core Web Vitals
[Same structure]

---

## Deep Lenses
*(Include only the lenses that were run. Omit this whole section for a core-only audit.)*

### Lens — [Name, e.g. Behavioural Laws]
**RAG: 🟡 Amber | Score: 6/10**

#### Issues
[Same issue structure as core frameworks. For bundled lenses like Behavioural Laws,
tag each issue to the specific law/principle, e.g. "**Law:** Hick's Law".]

#### Net-new vs. core
[Briefly note what this lens surfaced that the core audit didn't. If nothing, say so.]

#### Positives
- [What the product does well under this lens]

[Repeat per active lens]

---

## Prioritised Action Plan

| Priority | Issue | Framework | Severity | Effort |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | [Issue] | [Framework] | 🔴 Critical | 🟢 Quick Win |
| 2 | ... | ... | ... | ... |

---

## What's Working Well
[Concise list of genuine strengths — don't skip this. Balance matters.]

---

## Audit Caveats
- [Note any checks that couldn't be performed and why]
- [Note if dynamic/authenticated states weren't audited]
- [Recommend follow-up user testing for subjective areas]

---

Step 3 — Deliver the Report

• Save the report as a .md file: ux-audit-[domain]-[date].md
• Use present_files to surface it to the user.
• Offer to:
  • Deep-dive into any single framework section
  • Run a deep lens not yet applied (behavioural psychology, trust & persuasion, classic usability extended, interaction-design principles) — name the one most relevant to this product
  • Generate a developer-friendly issue ticket list
  • Re-audit after fixes are applied

---

Audit Principles

• Be specific, not vague. "Low contrast on the CTA button (#6B6B6B on white fails WCAG AA)" beats "contrast could be better."
• Cite what you saw. Reference actual copy, element names, or screenshot regions.
• Balance criticism with strengths. An all-negative report loses credibility and demoralises teams.
• Don't hallucinate metrics. If you can't verify a Core Web Vitals score, say so — suggest tools like PageSpeed Insights.
• Flag subjective areas. Some heuristics (e.g. aesthetic minimalism) require human judgment. Mark these clearly.
• Group by pattern. If 6 buttons have inconsistent labels, that's one issue with 6 instances — not 6 issues.
• Don't double-count across lenses. Deep lenses overlap the core frameworks and each other by design. Raise each root issue once, under the most specific framework/principle, and cross-reference elsewhere. A lens that surfaces nothing new should say so and be scored on its merits — never pad it with restated core findings.
• Persuasion cuts both ways. Under Trust & Persuasion, flag dark patterns (fake scarcity, inflated social proof, coercive commitment) as findings of at least Major severity — persuasion misused is a problem, not a strength.