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

1. 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.
2. 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.

1. Score each issue: severity (high/med/low) × effort (S/M/L). Propose a concrete fix per issue.
2. Write ./design/audit.md, sorted by severity. Hand fixes to design-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.