Impeccable Audit

MANDATORY PREPARATION

Invoke /impeccable-design — it contains design principles, anti-patterns, and the Context Gathering Protocol. Follow the protocol before proceeding — if no design context exists yet, ask the user directly for target audience, use cases, and brand personality first.

Run systematic technical quality checks and generate a comprehensive report. Don't fix issues — document them for other commands to address.

This is a code-level audit, not a design critique. Check what's measurable and verifiable in the implementation.

Diagnostic Scan

Run comprehensive checks across 5 dimensions. Score each dimension 0-4 using the criteria below.

1. Accessibility (A11y)

Check for: Contrast issues (text <4.5:1), missing ARIA labels/roles, keyboard navigation gaps, illogical tab order, semantic HTML issues, missing alt text, forms without labels.

Score 0-4: 0=Inaccessible (fails WCAG A), 1=Major gaps, 2=Partial (some a11y, significant gaps), 3=Good (WCAG AA mostly met), 4=Excellent (WCAG AA fully met)

2. Performance

Check for: Layout thrashing (reading/writing layout props in loops), expensive animations (animating width/height/top/left instead of transform/opacity), missing lazy loading, unnecessary imports, unoptimized re-renders.

Score 0-4: 0=Severe issues, 1=Major problems, 2=Partial, 3=Good (mostly optimized), 4=Excellent

3. Theming

Check for: Hard-coded colors (not using design tokens), broken dark mode, inconsistent token usage, values that don't update on theme change.

Score 0-4: 0=No theming, 1=Minimal tokens, 2=Partial, 3=Good (tokens used, minor hard-coded), 4=Excellent (full token system)

4. Responsive Design

Check for: Fixed widths, touch targets <44×44px, horizontal scroll, text scaling issues, missing breakpoints.

Score 0-4: 0=Desktop-only, 1=Major issues, 2=Partial, 3=Good (responsive, minor issues), 4=Excellent

5. Anti-Patterns (CRITICAL)

Check against ALL NEVER guidelines in impeccable-design. Look for AI slop tells: AI color palette, gradient text, glassmorphism, hero metrics, card grids, generic fonts, rounded rectangles with generic shadows, bounce easing.

Score 0-4: 0=AI slop gallery (5+ tells), 1=Heavy AI aesthetic (3-4 tells), 2=Some tells (1-2), 3=Mostly clean (subtle only), 4=No AI tells

Generate Report

Audit Health Score

Rating bands: 18-20 Excellent, 14-17 Good, 10-13 Acceptable, 6-9 Poor, 0-5 Critical

Anti-Patterns Verdict

Start here. Pass/fail: Does this look AI-generated? List specific tells. Be brutally honest.

Executive Summary

• Audit Health Score: ??/20
• Issue count by severity: P0/P1/P2/P3
• Top 3-5 critical issues
• Recommended next steps

Detailed Findings by Severity

Tag every issue with P0-P3:

• P0 Blocking: Prevents task completion — fix immediately
• P1 Major: Significant difficulty or WCAG AA violation — fix before release
• P2 Minor: Annoyance, workaround exists — fix in next pass
• P3 Polish: Nice-to-fix, no real user impact — fix if time permits

For each issue:

• [P?] Issue name
• Location: Component, file, line
• Category: Accessibility / Performance / Theming / Responsive / Anti-Pattern
• Impact: How it affects users
• Recommendation: How to fix it
• Suggested command: /impeccable-design or /impeccable-polish

Systemic Issues

Identify recurring problems: "Hard-coded colors appear in 15+ components — should use design tokens"

Positive Findings

Note what's working well — good practices to maintain and replicate.

Recommended Actions

List recommended commands in priority order (P0 first):

1. [P?] /impeccable-polish — [specific context from audit findings]
2. [P?] /impeccable-design — [context]

After presenting the summary:

You can ask me to run these one at a time, all at once, or in any order you prefer. Re-run /impeccable-audit after fixes to see your score improve.

NEVER: Report without impact explanation. Provide generic recommendations. Skip positive findings. Forget to prioritize.