Install
$ agentstack add skill-dkeken-codex-skills-alternative-design-audit ✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.
Security review
✓ PassedNo issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →
- ✓ Prompt-injection patterns
- ✓ Secret / credential exfiltration
- ✓ Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
- ✓ Untrusted network calls
- ✓ Known-malicious package signatures
What it can access
- ✓ Network access No
- ✓ Filesystem access No
- ✓ Shell / process execution No
- ✓ Environment & secrets No
- ✓ Dynamic code execution No
From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.
Verified badge
Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.
Reliability & compatibility
Declared compatibility
Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.
We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.
How agent discovery & health will work →About
Design — Audit
Find what's broken in an EXISTING interface and prioritize fixes by impact. The output is a ranked, actionable issue list — not a vibe check. Every issue ties back to the user's goal, so you're fixing what matters, not nitpicking pixels.
When to use
- An existing screen/flow/site needs critique before iterating.
- "Why is conversion/completion low here?"
- Pre-redesign baseline: what to keep, what to fix.
When NOT to use
- Nothing's built yet →
design-ideate/design-get-context. - You want competitor benchmarks →
design-research. - Final conformance check on a prototype you just built →
design-qa(compares to a spec; audit is open-ended).
Inputs
- Target: live URL, screenshot/image, or component path.
./design/context.md(goal, user, success) if it exists — anchors severity.
Workflow
- Capture the UI: for a URL, use a browser-automation tool (snapshot + screenshot) or a web-fetch tool; for an image, use a vision/read tool; for code, read the components.
- Run heuristic passes:
- Hierarchy: is the primary action obvious within ~2 seconds? One clear focal point?
- Clarity: labels, microcopy, empty/error/loading states present and understandable?
- Flow: step count, friction, dead ends, unnecessary choices.
- Accessibility: contrast ratios, focus order, target sizes (≥44px), alt text, keyboard reachability. (Note: full WCAG conformance needs manual assistive-tech testing — flag it.)
- Consistency: spacing rhythm, type scale, component reuse vs one-offs.
- Conversion: distractions competing with the CTA, trust cues, friction before value.
- Score each issue: severity (high/med/low) × effort (S/M/L). Propose a concrete fix per issue.
- Write
./design/audit.md, sorted by severity. Hand fixes todesign-ideate/design-prototype.
Output: ./design/audit.md
target: https://app.example.com/signup goal: ↑ signup completion
| # | area | issue | sev | fix | eff |
|---|------------|------------------------------------|------|----------------------------------|-----|
| 1 | hierarchy | 3 CTAs same weight above the fold | HIGH | one primary, demote 2 to links | S |
| 2 | clarity | no error state on failed submit | HIGH | inline field errors + summary | M |
| 3 | a11y | CTA contrast 3.1:1 (<4.5 req) | HIGH | darken accent to #1A6FؚE | S |
| 4 | flow | asks company size before email | MED | move optional fields after signup| M |
| 5 | a11y | keyboard focus not visible | MED | add focus ring | S |
notes: full screen-reader pass still required (manual AT).
verdict: 3 HIGH issues likely suppressing completion; fix 1-3 first.
Quality bar
- Every issue ties to the user goal/success criteria — no taste nitpicks.
- Severity reflects user impact, not personal preference.
- Each issue has a concrete, implementable fix (not "improve hierarchy").
- Accessibility findings state what was checked vs what needs manual AT validation.
- Confirmed problems are separated from hypotheses ("likely" vs "is").
Common pitfalls
- Nitpicking — listing 30 cosmetic issues buries the 3 that matter. Prioritize ruthlessly.
- Overclaiming a11y — automated contrast/focus checks ≠ full WCAG. Be honest about the gap.
- Vague fixes — "make it clearer" isn't actionable; "merge the two CTAs, primary = Sign up" is.
- Ignoring the goal — an audit untethered from the goal optimizes the wrong things.
Handoff
audit.md → design-ideate (if fixes need new directions) or design-prototype (if fixes are direct edits). HIGH issues are the priority backlog.
Tooling
Live URL audit needs a browser-automation tool (snapshot/screenshot) or web-fetch; image audit needs a vision/read tool; code audit needs file reads. Degrades to a heuristic review of whatever can be captured; state what couldn't be verified.
Source & license
This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.
- Author: DKeken
- Source: DKeken/codex-skills-alternative
- License: MIT
Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.
Reviews
No reviews yet, be the first.
Write a review
Versions
- v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.