agentleFS
Docat0209Docat0209/SoloForge/skills/ux-audit/SKILL.md

ux-audit

Skill1 starsChanged 7 months agoMITView on GitHub

Visual and UX quality audit using Playwright. Triggers ONLY when: PR has passed pre-pr and is ready to merge with UI/UX changes, or user explicitly asks for UX audit. Do NOT trigger for backend-only changes or during development.

26 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

Used with

Projects with it also use ecosystem-reference, fractal-delegation and 10 more.

Other files people use alongside this one.

Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
  • naman10parikhSkill

    ecosystem-reference

    Quick-access directory of Claude Code ecosystem repos, skills, plugins, MCPs, and patterns. Use when improving the harness.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • naman10parikhSkill

    fractal-delegation

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • KirchliveSkill

    skill-routing

    Decides which of the installed skills a task needs and loads them before the work starts. This skill should be used at the beginning of any multi-step task — build, fix, refactor, migrate, review, plan, release, research, write, design, video — and again at every phase change, after context compaction, and when work moves into a different part of the codebase. Use it for requests like "let's build X", "fix this bug", "refactor Y", "plan the migration", "review this", and also when the user asks which skill applies, why a skill did not fire, or asks to check what is available.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • sublimotionSkill

    agent-runtime

    Launch and manage detached agent runs on EKS via the agent-runner CLI. Use when the user says "launch an agent run", "agent runtime", "agent-runner", "run this spec on the cluster", "check run status", "agent run logs", or "stop a run". Do NOT use for writing the agent-runner code itself (edit the sibling ../agent-runner repo), Terraform of the foundation (use terraform-automation), or GPU serving deployments (use infra-deployer).

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • GoZippySkill

    repo-scout

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • BenjaminGSkill

    harness-review

    Turn one PR's review comments into harness fixes — classify each cause by the most solid place it can live (codebase, lint, rules, skill), then draft the fixes in a separate PR.

    Also in 5 projects that use this

  • +6 more from naman10parikh

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 23 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 3

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Run this audit AFTER pre-pr passes and BEFORE merging.

    line 10
  2. Very specific:

    Use Playwright's browser_evaluate to run Performance API calls and measure Core Web Vitals.

    line 75
  3. Distinctive:

    If any metric exceeds its target, flag it and investigate:

    line 91
  4. Distinctive:

    All features merged → "Run staging-verify for release"

    line 134

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 23 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Scope: This skill audits UX quality for feature PRs merging to dev. For release verification (dev → main), use the staging-verify skill instead — it tests the deployed staging environment.

UX Audit — Visual & Functional Quality Gate

Run this audit AFTER pre-pr passes and BEFORE merging. The goal is to verify the product works correctly from a user's perspective, not just from a code perspective.

Tools required: Playwright MCP (browser_navigate, browser_take_screenshot, browser_click, browser_type, browser_snapshot, browser_evaluate)


Phase 1: Visual Review (Screenshots)

Take screenshots of every page or component affected by this PR.

For each screenshot, verify:

  • Layout integrity — elements are properly aligned, no overlapping, no overflow, spacing is consistent
  • Visual hierarchy — primary actions are visually prominent, secondary actions are subordinate, information flows logically top-to-bottom / left-to-right
  • Color and contrast — text is readable against its background, interactive elements are visually distinct from static content, disabled states are visually differentiated
  • Responsive behavior — take screenshots at mobile (375px), tablet (768px), and desktop (1280px) widths. Layout adapts without breaking, no horizontal scrolling, touch targets are ≥44px on mobile
  • Empty states — pages with no data show helpful guidance, not blank screens or raw error messages
  • Loading states — skeleton screens or spinners appear during async operations, not frozen UI
  • Error states — invalid inputs show clear, contextual error messages near the relevant field

How to screenshot:

browser_navigate → target URL
browser_take_screenshot → review the image
browser_resize → change viewport → browser_take_screenshot again

Phase 2: Discoverability Test

Approach the interface as a first-time user with zero prior knowledge. Do not reference the code, issue description, or implementation details.

  • Can you find the new/changed feature? Navigate from the app's entry point using only visible UI elements. If the feature requires more than 3 clicks or is hidden behind non-obvious navigation, flag it.
  • Are interactive elements recognizable? Buttons look clickable, links look like links, inputs have placeholders or labels, drag targets have affordances.
  • Is the flow self-explanatory? Without reading documentation, can you understand what each step does and what comes next? If you feel lost at any point, that is a UX failure.
  • Are labels and copy clear? No developer jargon in user-facing text, no ambiguous button labels (e.g., "Submit" without context), no placeholder text left in production.

Phase 3: Functional UX Test

Interact with every feature affected by this PR. Test both the functionality and the experience of using it.

For each interaction, verify:

  • Immediate feedback — every user action produces a visible response within 100ms (button press effect, input character appears, loading indicator starts). No "dead clicks" where nothing happens.
  • State transitions — UI updates correctly after actions: form submits → success message, item deleted → removed from list, toggle switched → state reflected everywhere it appears
  • Input behavior — text fields accept input and display it in real time, selections are reflected immediately, multi-step forms preserve state between steps
  • Undo/recovery — destructive actions have confirmation dialogs, accidental navigation away from unsaved work triggers a warning, errors are recoverable without data loss
  • Boundary conditions — extremely long text wraps or truncates gracefully, rapid repeated clicks don't cause duplicate submissions, concurrent actions don't corrupt state
  • Keyboard navigation — critical flows are completable with keyboard alone (Tab, Enter, Escape). Focus indicators are visible. Modal dialogs trap focus.
  • Cross-browser basics — if feasible, test in both Chromium and Firefox (Playwright supports both)

How to test interactions:

browser_click → interact with element
browser_take_screenshot → verify visual response
browser_type → input text
browser_take_screenshot → verify real-time feedback
browser_snapshot → verify accessibility tree reflects correct state

Phase 4: Performance Measurement

Use Playwright's browser_evaluate to run Performance API calls and measure Core Web Vitals.

Metrics to collect:

MetricTargetHow to measure
TTFB (Time to First Byte)< 200msperformance.getEntriesByType('navigation')[0].responseStart
FCP (First Contentful Paint)< 1.8sperformance.getEntriesByType('paint').find(e => e.name === 'first-contentful-paint').startTime
LCP (Largest Contentful Paint)< 2.5sPerformanceObserver with type largest-contentful-paint
CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift)< 0.1PerformanceObserver with type layout-shift, sum entries without recent input
Total page weight< 1MB initialperformance.getEntriesByType('resource').reduce((sum, r) => sum + r.transferSize, 0)

Process:

  1. Navigate to each affected page
  2. Collect all metrics via browser_evaluate
  3. Compare against targets
  4. If any metric exceeds its target, flag it and investigate:
    • TTFB high → server/API latency
    • FCP high → render-blocking resources
    • LCP high → large images, slow fonts, heavy JS
    • CLS high → elements shifting after load (missing dimensions on images/embeds)
    • Page weight high → uncompressed assets, unnecessary dependencies

Verdict

Report format:

## UX Audit Report

### Visual Review
- [PASS/FAIL] Layout, color, responsive, empty/loading/error states

### Discoverability
- [PASS/FAIL] Feature findable within 3 clicks, labels clear, flow self-explanatory

### Functional UX
- [PASS/FAIL] Immediate feedback, state transitions, input behavior, keyboard nav

### Performance
- TTFB: Xms (target <200ms) [PASS/FAIL]
- FCP: Xs (target <1.8s) [PASS/FAIL]
- LCP: Xs (target <2.5s) [PASS/FAIL]
- CLS: X (target <0.1) [PASS/FAIL]

### Issues Found
1. [severity] description — screenshot reference

If ANY phase fails: fix the issues before merging. Re-run the failing phase to verify the fix. If ALL phases pass: state "UX audit passed. Ready to merge."

Next Steps

Report to user: "UX audit [PASS/FAIL]. Visual: [score]. Discoverability: [score]. Performance: [LCP/CLS]"

Suggested next steps (user decides):

  • Passed → "Merge PR, then run post-merge"
  • Failed → "Fix UX issues, then re-run self-review"
  • All features merged → "Run staging-verify for release"

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.