Real-user dogfooding with emotional friction tracking, click efficiency counting, and resilience testing to produce ranked audit reports.
Works with
Supports three operating modes: UX Walkthrough (persona-based task completion), QA Sweep (systematic feature testing), and Targeted Check (focused area validation)
Tracks emotional friction signals (trust, anxiety, confusion), click efficiency, form resilience (mid-navigation, back button, refresh), and asks \"would I come back?\"
Three depth level
AI-first code editor with Composer
Before installing skills in Cursor, ensure your development environment meets these requirements:
node --versionux-auditExecute the skills CLI command in your project's root directory to begin installation:
Fetches ux-audit from jezweb/claude-skills and configures it for Cursor.
The CLI shows a list of agents. Use arrow keys and space to select Cursor:
Confirm successful installation by checking the skill directory location:
Restart Cursor to activate ux-audit. Access via /ux-audit in your agent's command palette.
We perform automated surface-level scans (Gen AI Scanner, Socket, Snyk) during installation. These checks detect common vulnerabilities but do not guarantee complete security. Always review skill source code and verify the publisher's reputation before production use.
Skills execute code in your environment. Always review source, verify the publisher, and test in isolation before production.
Submit your Claude Code skill and start earning
Create detailed user stories, acceptance criteria, and feature specs
Example
Generate user stories for 'password reset feature' with acceptance criteria, edge cases, and test scenarios
Reduce spec writing time by 50%, ensure comprehensive coverage
Research competitors, compare features, identify gaps
Example
Analyze 5 competitor products, create feature comparison matrix, suggest differentiation opportunities
Complete competitive research in 2 hours instead of 2 days
Evaluate features using frameworks (RICE, ICE, Kano) and create prioritized backlogs
Example
Score 20 feature ideas using RICE framework, generate prioritized roadmap with rationale
3
total installs
3
this week
697
GitHub stars
0
upvotes
Run in your terminal
3
installs
3
this week
697
stars
Dogfood web apps by browsing them as a real user would — with their goals, their patience, and their context. Goes beyond "does it work?" to "is it good?" by tracking emotional friction (trust, anxiety, confusion), counting click efficiency, testing resilience, and asking the ultimate question: "would I come back?" Uses Chrome MCP (for authenticated apps with your session) or Playwright for browser automation. Produces structured audit reports with findings ranked by impact.
Before starting any mode, detect available browser tools:
mcp__claude-in-chrome__*) — preferred for authenticated apps. Uses the user's logged-in Chrome session, so OAuth/cookies just work.mcp__plugin_playwright_playwright__*) — for public apps or parallel sessions.If none are available, inform the user and suggest installing Chrome MCP or Playwright.
See references/browser-tools.md for tool-specific commands.
If the user didn't provide a URL, find one automatically. Prefer the deployed/live version — that's what real users see.
Check wrangler.jsonc for custom domains or routes:
grep -E '"pattern"|"custom_domain"' wrangler.jsonc 2>/dev/null
If found, use the production URL (e.g. https://app.example.com).
Check for deployed URL in CLAUDE.md, README, or package.json homepage field.
Fall back to local dev server — check if one is already running:
lsof -i :5173 -i :3000 -i :8787 -t 2>/dev/null
If running, use http://localhost:{port}.
Ask the user as a last resort.
Why live over local: The live site has real data, real auth, real network latency, real CDN behaviour, and real CORS/CSP policies. Testing locally misses deployment-specific issues (missing env vars, broken asset paths, CORS errors, slow API responses). The UX audit should test what the user actually experiences.
When local is better: The user explicitly says "test localhost", or the feature isn't deployed yet.
Control how thorough the audit is. Pass as an argument: /ux-audit quick, /ux-audit thorough, or default to standard.
| Depth | Duration | Autonomy | What it covers |
|---|---|---|---|
| quick | 5-10 min | Interactive | One user flow, happy path only. Spot check after a change. |
| standard | 20-40 min | Semi-autonomous | Full walkthrough + QA sweep of main pages. Default. |
| thorough | 1-3 hours | Fully autonomous | Multiple personas, all pages, all modes combined. Overnight mode. |
| exhaustive | 4-8+ hours | Fully autonomous | Every interactive element on every page. Every button clicked, every dialog opened, every form filled, every state triggered. Leave nothing untested. |
The exhaustive mode goes beyond thorough. Thorough tests workflows and pages. Exhaustive tests every single interactive element in the application.
For each page discovered:
Progress tracking: This mode generates a LOT of findings. Write findings to the report incrementally — don't hold everything in memory. Update docs/ux-audit-exhaustive-YYYY-MM-DD.md after each page is complete.
Element inventory format (per page):
/clients — 47 interactive elements
[x] "Add Client" button — opens modal ✓, form submits ✓, validation ✓
[x] Search input — filters correctly ✓, clear button works ✓, empty search ✓
[x] Sort dropdown — all 4 options work ✓, persists on navigation ✗ (BUG)
[x] Client row click — navigates to detail ✓
[x] Star button — toggles ✓, persists on refresh ✓
[ ] Pagination — next ✓, prev ✓, page numbers ✓, items per page ✗ (not tested - no data)
...
The thorough mode is designed to run unattended. Kick it off at end of day, review the report in the morning. The user should NOT need to find issues themselves — this mode catches everything.
Mindset: Don't run through a checklist. Think about the real person who will use this app every day. What are the threads of their workday? How will they move through the system? Will they understand what they're looking at? Will the app teach them how to use it through its design, or will they be guessing? Read references/workflow-comprehension.md before starting.
.jez/screenshots/ux-audit/ (numbered chronologically)docs/ux-audit-thorough-YYYY-MM-DD.md with issue counts by severityOn each page, inject JavaScript via the browser tool to programmatically detect layout issues:
// Detect elements overflowing their parent
document.querySelectorAll('*').forEach(el => {
const r = el.getBoundingClientRect();
const p = el.parentElement?.getBoundingClientRect();
if (p && (r.left < p.left - 1 || r.right > p.right + 1)) {
console.warn('OVERFLOW:', el.tagName, el.className, 'extends beyond parent');
}
});
// Detect text clipped by containers
document.querySelectorAll('h1,h2,h3,h4,p,span,a,button,label').forEach(el => {
if (el.scrollWidth > el.clientWidth + 2 || el.scrollHeight > el.clientHeight + 2) {
console.warn('CLIPPED:', el.tagName, el.textContent?.slice(0,50));
}
});
// Detect elements with zero or negative visibility
document.querySelectorAll('*').forEach(el => {
const s = getComputedStyle(el);
const r = el.getBoundingClientRect();
if (r.width > 0 && r.height > 0 && r.left + r.width < 0) {
console.warn('OFF-SCREEN LEFT:', el.tagName, el.className);
}
});
// Detect low contrast text (rough check)
document.querySelectorAll('h1,h2,h3,p,span,a,li,td,th,label,button').forEach(el => {
const s = getComputedStyle(el);
if (s.color === s.backgroundColor || s.opacity === '0') {
console.warn('INVISIBLE TEXT:', el.tagName, el.textContent?.slice(0,30));
Make data-driven prioritization decisions faster
Draft PRDs, status updates, and stakeholder presentations
Example
Create executive summary of Q3 roadmap, monthly progress report, feature launch announcement
Save 3-5 hours/week on communication overhead
Prerequisites
Time Estimate
30-60 minutes to see productivity improvements
Steps
Common Pitfalls
✓ Do
✗ Don't
💡 Pro Tips
✓ Use when
Use for user story writing, competitive research, roadmap prioritization, stakeholder communication, and PRD drafting. Best for reducing repetitive documentation and research work.
✗ Avoid when
Avoid for strategic product vision (requires deep customer empathy), pricing decisions (needs market and financial expertise), or when face-to-face customer discovery is more valuable than speed.
jezweb/claude-skills
shadcn/improve
mattpocock/skills
parcadei/continuous-claude-v3
cursor/plugins
ailabs-393/ai-labs-claude-skills
ux-audit reduced setup friction for our internal harness; good balance of opinion and flexibility.
ux-audit is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
ux-audit fits our agent workflows well — practical, well scoped, and easy to wire into existing repos.
ux-audit has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
Keeps context tight: ux-audit is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
ux-audit has been reliable in day-to-day use. Documentation quality is above average for community skills.
I recommend ux-audit for anyone iterating fast on agent tooling; clear intent and a small, reviewable surface area.
Solid pick for teams standardizing on skills: ux-audit is focused, and the summary matches what you get after install.
Keeps context tight: ux-audit is the kind of skill you can hand to a new teammate without a long onboarding doc.
ux-audit is among the better-maintained entries we tried; worth keeping pinned for repeat workflows.
showing 1-10 of 49