keysjoao/laws-of-ux-skills

laws-of-ux-review

Audit existing UI code against all 30 Laws of UX, scoring compliance 0-60 with prioritized code fixes.

View source

How to use

  1. Copy the installation command and review the source package before installing it in your own agent environment.
  2. Check the source document for required tools, credentials and supported hosts.
  3. Describe your input and desired deliverable; review the output against the source material.
npx skills add https://github.com/keysjoao/laws-of-ux-skills --skill laws-of-ux-review

Before you start

  • Installation does not include a model subscription, API allowance or permission to access your files.
  • Repository stars and installation counts describe activity, not an independent quality or security test.
Original skill document

Rendered from the source repository. Headings, examples, code, tables, links, and referenced images are preserved.

Laws of UX — Review & Audit

Score existing UI code against all 30 Laws of UX and deliver prioritized, code-level fixes.

Process

Step 1: Read the Target

Read the component/page file(s) the user wants audited. If no file specified, ask which file or component to review.

Step 2: Score Each Law

Load references/ux-laws-complete.md from the parent laws-of-ux skill.

For each of the 30 laws, score:

ScoreMeaning
2Compliant — law is properly applied
1Partial — some application but incomplete or inconsistent
0Violation — law is broken or not addressed where it should be
—N/A — law doesn't apply to this component type

Maximum score: 60 (all 30 laws fully compliant)

Step 3: Classify Findings

Group all non-compliant laws into severity tiers:

CRITICAL (score 0, high-impact laws): Laws that directly cause usability failures:

  • Fitts's Law (unreachable/tiny targets)
  • Doherty Threshold (no loading feedback)
  • Hick's Law (overwhelming choices)
  • Cognitive Load (too much at once)
  • Jakob's Law (breaks conventions)

WARNING (score 0-1, medium-impact laws): Laws that degrade experience:

  • Proximity, Common Region, Similarity (grouping issues)
  • Miller's Law, Chunking (information overload)
  • Goal-Gradient, Zeigarnik (missing progress)
  • Von Restorff (nothing stands out)

SUGGESTION (score 1, polish laws): Laws that improve quality:

  • Aesthetic-Usability (visual polish)
  • Peak-End Rule (celebration states)
  • Flow (minor interruptions)
  • Parkinson's Law (time cues)

Step 4: Generate Report

Output this exact format:

markdown
# UX Audit: [Component/Page Name]

**Score: [X]/60** | **Grade: [A/B/C/D/F]**

| Grade | Range |
|-------|-------|
| A | 50-60 |
| B | 40-49 |
| C | 30-39 |
| D | 20-29 |
| F | 0-19 |

## Critical Issues ([count])

### [Law Name] — Score: 0/2
**Problem:** [What's wrong, referencing specific lines]
**Fix:**

// Before (line XX) [current code]

// After [fixed code]


## Warnings ([count])

### [Law Name] — Score: [0-1]/2
**Problem:** [description]
**Fix:** [code change]

## Suggestions ([count])

### [Law Name] — Score: 1/2
**Improve:** [description]
**Code:** [enhancement]

## Compliant ([count])
[List of laws scoring 2/2 — no action needed]

## N/A ([count])
[List of laws not applicable to this component]

Step 5: Prioritized Action Plan

After the report, provide a numbered action plan:

markdown
## Action Plan (do in this order)

1. **[Critical fix]** — [1-line description] → [file:line]
2. **[Critical fix]** — [1-line description] → [file:line]
3. **[Warning fix]** — [1-line description] → [file:line]
...

Rules

  1. Always read the actual code — never score based on assumptions
  2. Every violation needs a code fix — no fix = not a real finding
  3. Be honest about N/A — don't force-apply laws that don't fit
  4. Reference specific lines — file.tsx:42 not "somewhere in the component"
  5. Score consistently — same violation in two components gets same score

Related by task