Design & accessibility · Audit

Design System Audit

Audit the implementation design system: tokens, components, variants, styles, layout primitives, interaction states, documentation, and test/story coverage. Keep only repo-visible issues that make UI work slower, inconsistent, inaccessible, fragile, or visibly divergent.

MCP library 1.6.1 · Instruction library 1.6.1 · English technical instructions

← Back to search

Use this workflow

Connect Vibe Coding Library to a coding agent that supports MCP over Streamable HTTP. Choose Other / MCP agent for a neutral prompt, or a ready-made Codex or Claude Code invocation. Add your task details below.

Goal

Audit the implementation design system: tokens, components, variants, styles, layout primitives, interaction states, documentation, and test/story coverage. Keep only repo-visible issues that make UI work slower, inconsistent, inaccessible, fragile, or visibly divergent.

Inspect

Theme config, tokens, CSS/Tailwind/styled-system files, shared components, page-level variants, icons/assets, Storybook or component docs, DESIGN.md, screenshots/previews, tests/snapshots, forms/tables/modals, layout primitives, i18n/copy patterns, and generated UI artifacts.

Issue classes

  • Token ownership: duplicated hardcoded values, mixed units, drift between theme/config/docs, missing semantic tokens for repeated UI decisions.
  • Component variants: inconsistent sizes/states, forked implementations, duplicated patterns, missing disabled/loading/error/focus/destructive variants.
  • Style architecture: ad-hoc CSS, one-off Tailwind/class soup where a component owner exists, conflicting responsive patterns, fragile specificity, and style leakage.
  • Accessibility baked into system: shared components missing accessible names, focus handling, keyboard support, status announcements, contrast-friendly variants, or semantic defaults.
  • Documentation and regression resistance: stale DESIGN.md, missing stories/examples for core variants, fragile snapshots, no visual/test coverage for shared components.
  • Implementation drift: public surfaces bypass the system, docs promise unavailable variants, or owner components do not match actual route usage.

Finding quality

  • Include expected system behavior, affected surfaces, acceptance criteria, and validation direction including preview/story/screenshot when available.
  • Do not report taste-only preferences without system consistency, accessibility, maintainability, or user-impact evidence.

Trace and hand off

Choose the repeated rule or variant and inspect its token/component definition alongside actual route consumers. Compare the same state, density and viewport before calling a difference drift. Distinguish intentional local variation from duplicated ownership, stale docs and a shared defect. Pass the governing visual/interaction rule, affected consumers and an observable comparison to Improve Design System.

Workflow ID: design-system-audit · View the versioned source · Shared workflow and authority rules