/frontend-quality-auditor
Audit launch readiness; report ship/no-ship.
$ npx -y skills add TheGoat395/Codex-Skills --skill frontend-quality-auditor --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
- Fires itselfAuto-invocation. Claude auto-loads it when your prompt matches the work.Auto-invocation is when the right skill fires by itself at the right moment, driven by a FLOW.md router and a hook, instead of you invoking it by name. It is the difference between a skill being installed and a skill actually getting used.Read the full definition →
- You can call itInvoke it directly when you want it.
- Slash command
/frontend-quality-auditor
Context preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Audit launch readiness; report ship/no-ship.
SKILL.md
frontend-quality-auditor.SKILL.mdname: frontend-quality-auditor
description: "Audit launch readiness; report ship/no-ship."
Frontend Quality Auditor
Use this skill to decide whether a frontend is ready to ship and what should be fixed first.
Core Contract
Produce a concise, evidence-based quality report. Do not redesign the product unless the user explicitly asks for fixes. The default output is an audit, not a rebuild.
Audit Workflow
1. Identify the project type, framework, entry routes, styling system, scripts, and available preview or deployment URL. 2. Inspect source structure first, then inspect rendered output when a browser or screenshot workflow is available. 3. Review desktop and mobile breakpoints before judging visual quality. 4. Check the launch-critical surfaces: hero or first screen, navigation, primary CTA, forms, media, interactive states, footer, error/loading/empty states, and any checkout, booking, pricing, or dashboard flows. 5. Classify issues by severity:
- **Blocker**: likely broken, inaccessible, misleading, unusable, or launch-damaging.
- **High**: visibly unprofessional, confusing, slow, fragile, or trust-reducing.
- **Medium**: polish, consistency, or resilience issue worth fixing soon.
- **Low**: minor refinement that should not block launch.
6. Recommend the smallest useful next action for each meaningful issue. 7. End with a clear **Ship**, **Ship after fixes**, or **Do not ship yet** judgment.
Review Areas
- **Visual polish**: hierarchy, spacing, typography, alignment, density, color, contrast, icon use, media treatment, empty space, and generic AI-looking patterns.
- **Responsive behavior**: mobile composition, tablet layout, overflow, touch targets, nav behavior, media crops, and text wrapping.
- **Accessibility**: semantic structure, headings, labels, focus states, keyboard paths, alt text, contrast, reduced motion, ARIA misuse, and modal/menu behavior.
- **Performance**: image and video weight, layout shift risk, font loading, animation cost, bundle hints, third-party scripts, and Core Web Vitals concerns.
- **SEO and sharing basics**: title, description, canonical, Open Graph, heading order, crawlable content, image alt text, sitemap/robots signals when relevant.
- **Interaction quality**: hover, focus, active, disabled, loading, error, success, offline, retry, and empty states.
- **Content and trust**: vague claims, placeholder copy, weak CTAs, unsupported proof, unclear pricing or contact flows, missing legal or support signals where expected.
Use Specialist Skills When Available
Route deep follow-up work to focused skills instead of bloating this audit:
- `browser-inspection-workflow` for rendered browser inspection and evidence capture.
- `visual-polish-qa` or `responsive-visual-polish-qa` for visual fixes.
- `mobile-responsive-qa` for phone and tablet layout issues.
- `accessibility-audit-websites` for detailed accessibility remediation.
- `performance-audit-websites` or `performance-budget-lab` for speed and Core Web Vitals.
- `seo-technical-qa` for launch SEO checks.
- `cross-browser-qa` for browser compatibility.
- `anti-generic-website-review` for generic AI output and weak design patterns.
- `content-pruning-review`, `non-generic-web-copy`, or `cta-language-systems` for copy and conversion clarity.
Output Format
Use this structure unless the user asks for something else:
1. **Verdict**: Ship, ship after fixes, or do not ship yet. 2. **Top Risks**: The material issues most likely to affect users or trust, if any; do not invent a minimum count. 3. **Findings**: Severity, location, evidence, impact, and recommended fix. 4. **Quick Wins**: Small improvements with high visible payoff. 5. **Specialist Follow-Ups**: Which focused skills or checks should be run next. 6. **Verification Notes**: Commands, URLs, viewports, screenshots, and checks actually performed.
Read `references/audit-checklist.md` for the full checklist when performing a complete launch-readiness review.
Scope and evidence
Add `insufficient evidence / not assessed` when source-only or sampled evidence cannot support readiness. Qualify every verdict by surface and claimed stage. Recommendations remain recommendations in an analysis-only audit.
Read more
name: frontend-quality-auditor description: "Audit launch readiness; report ship/no-ship."
Frontend Quality Auditor
Use this skill to decide whether a frontend is ready to ship and what should be fixed first.
Core Contract
Produce a concise, evidence-based quality report. Do not redesign the product unless the user explicitly asks for fixes. The default output is an audit, not a rebuild.
Audit Workflow
1. Identify the project type, framework, entry routes, styling system, scripts, and available preview or deployment URL. 2. Inspect source structure first, then inspect rendered output when a browser or screenshot workflow is available. 3. Review desktop and mobile breakpoints before judging visual quality. 4. Check the launch-critical surfaces: hero or first screen, navigation, primary CTA, forms, media, interactive states, footer, error/loading/empty states, and any checkout, booking, pricing, or dashboard flows. 5. Classify issues by severity:
- **Blocker**: likely broken, inaccessible, misleading, unusable, or launch-damaging.
- **High**: visibly unprofessional, confusing, slow, fragile, or trust-reducing.
- **Medium**: polish, consistency, or resilience issue worth fixing soon.
- **Low**: minor refinement that should not block launch.
6. Recommend the smallest useful next action for each meaningful issue. 7. End with a clear **Ship**, **Ship after fixes**, or **Do not ship yet** judgment.
Review Areas
- **Visual polish**: hierarchy, spacing, typography, alignment, density, color, contrast, icon use, media treatment, empty space, and generic AI-looking patterns.
- **Responsive behavior**: mobile composition, tablet layout, overflow, touch targets, nav behavior, media crops, and text wrapping.
- **Accessibility**: semantic structure, headings, labels, focus states, keyboard paths, alt text, contrast, reduced motion, ARIA misuse, and modal/menu behavior.
- **Performance**: image and video weight, layout shift risk, font loading, animation cost, bundle hints, third-party scripts, and Core Web Vitals concerns.
- **SEO and sharing basics**: title, description, canonical, Open Graph, heading order, crawlable content, image alt text, sitemap/robots signals when relevant.
- **Interaction quality**: hover, focus, active, disabled, loading, error, success, offline, retry, and empty states.
- **Content and trust**: vague claims, placeholder copy, weak CTAs, unsupported proof, unclear pricing or contact flows, missing legal or support signals where expected.
Use Specialist Skills When Available
Route deep follow-up work to focused skills instead of bloating this audit:
- `browser-inspection-workflow` for rendered browser inspection and evidence capture.
- `visual-polish-qa` or `responsive-visual-polish-qa` for visual fixes.
- `mobile-responsive-qa` for phone and tablet layout issues.
- `accessibility-audit-websites` for detailed accessibility remediation.
- `performance-audit-websites` or `performance-budget-lab` for speed and Core Web Vitals.
- `seo-technical-qa` for launch SEO checks.
- `cross-browser-qa` for browser compatibility.
- `anti-generic-website-review` for generic AI output and weak design patterns.
- `content-pruning-review`, `non-generic-web-copy`, or `cta-language-systems` for copy and conversion clarity.
Output Format
Use this structure unless the user asks for something else:
1. **Verdict**: Ship, ship after fixes, or do not ship yet. 2. **Top Risks**: The material issues most likely to affect users or trust, if any; do not invent a minimum count. 3. **Findings**: Severity, location, evidence, impact, and recommended fix. 4. **Quick Wins**: Small improvements with high visible payoff. 5. **Specialist Follow-Ups**: Which focused skills or checks should be run next. 6. **Verification Notes**: Commands, URLs, viewports, screenshots, and checks actually performed.
Read `references/audit-checklist.md` for the full checklist when performing a complete launch-readiness review.
Scope and evidence
Add `insufficient evidence / not assessed` when source-only or sampled evidence cannot support readiness. Qualify every verdict by surface and claimed stage. Recommendations remain recommendations in an analysis-only audit.
An unofficial, open-source, Codex-first Agent Skills library for premium frontend, website, design-engineering, and reliable agent workflows.

