review-ux-ui
Acerca de
Esta habilidad realiza revisiones integrales de UX/UI aplicando las heurísticas de Nielsen, los estándares de accesibilidad WCAG 2.1 y el análisis de flujos de usuario. Está diseñada para que los desarrolladores auditen interfaces en cuanto a usabilidad, accesibilidad y carga cognitiva antes del lanzamiento. Úsala para evaluaciones heurísticas, verificaciones de cumplimiento de accesibilidad y valoraciones de usabilidad de formularios.
Instalación rápida
Claude Code
Recomendadonpx skills add pjt222/agent-almanac -a claude-code/plugin add https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanacgit clone https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac.git ~/.claude/skills/review-ux-uiCopia y pega este comando en Claude Code para instalar esta habilidad
Documentación
Review UX/UI
Evaluate UX and UI for usability, accessibility, and effectiveness.
When to Use
- Usability review before release
- Accessibility audit (WCAG 2.1 AA or AAA)
- User flow evaluation for efficiency and error prevention
- Form review for usability and conversion
- Heuristic evaluation of an existing interface
- Cognitive load and information architecture assessment
Inputs
- Required: Application to review (URL, prototype, or source)
- Required: Target user (roles, technical proficiency, context)
- Optional: User research (interviews, surveys, analytics)
- Optional: WCAG target (A, AA, or AAA)
- Optional: Specific user flows to evaluate
- Optional: Assistive tech to test with (screen reader, switch access)
Procedure
Step 1: Heuristic Evaluation (Nielsen's 10 Heuristics)
Evaluate against each heuristic:
| # | Heuristic | Key Question | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Visibility of system status | Does the system always inform users about what is happening? | |
| 2 | Match between system and real world | Does the system use familiar language and concepts? | |
| 3 | User control and freedom | Can users easily undo, redo, or exit unwanted states? | |
| 4 | Consistency and standards | Do similar elements behave the same way throughout? | |
| 5 | Error prevention | Does the design prevent errors before they occur? | |
| 6 | Recognition rather than recall | Are options, actions, and information visible or easily retrievable? | |
| 7 | Flexibility and efficiency of use | Are there shortcuts for experienced users without confusing novices? | |
| 8 | Aesthetic and minimalist design | Does every element serve a purpose? Is there unnecessary clutter? | |
| 9 | Help users recognize, diagnose, and recover from errors | Are error messages clear, specific, and constructive? | |
| 10 | Help and documentation | Is help available and easy to find when needed? |
Rate violation severity:
| Severity | Description |
|---|---|
| 0 | Not a usability problem |
| 1 | Cosmetic — fix if time allows |
| 2 | Minor — low priority |
| 3 | Major — high priority |
| 4 | Catastrophic — must fix before release |
## Heuristic Evaluation Findings
| # | Heuristic | Severity | Finding | Location |
|---|-----------|----------|---------|----------|
| 1 | System status | 3 | No loading indicator during data fetch — users click repeatedly | Dashboard page |
| 3 | User control | 2 | No undo for item deletion — only a confirmation dialog | Item list |
| 5 | Error prevention | 3 | Date field accepts invalid dates (Feb 30) | Booking form |
| 9 | Error recovery | 4 | Form submission error clears all fields | Registration |
Got: All 10 heuristics evaluated with findings and severity ratings. If fail: If short on time, focus on heuristics 1, 3, 5, and 9.
Step 2: Accessibility Audit (WCAG 2.1)
Perceivable
- 1.1.1 Non-text content: Images have alt text (decorative use
alt="") - 1.3.1 Info and relationships: Semantic HTML (headings, lists, tables, landmarks)
- 1.3.2 Meaningful sequence: DOM order matches visual order
- 1.4.1 Use of colour: Colour is not the only means of conveying information
- 1.4.3 Contrast: Text contrast ≥ 4.5:1 (normal), ≥ 3:1 (large)
- 1.4.4 Resize text: Text resizes to 200% without loss of function
- 1.4.11 Non-text contrast: UI components and graphics ≥ 3:1 contrast
- 1.4.12 Text spacing: Works with line height 1.5x, letter spacing 0.12em, word spacing 0.16em
Operable
- 2.1.1 Keyboard: All functionality operable via keyboard
- 2.1.2 No keyboard trap: Focus never trapped
- 2.4.1 Skip links: Skip navigation link present
- 2.4.3 Focus order: Tab order follows logical sequence
- 2.4.7 Focus visible: Keyboard focus indicator visible
- 2.4.11 Focus not obscured: Focused element not hidden behind sticky headers/overlays
- 2.5.5 Target size: Targets ≥ 24x24px (44x44px on touch)
Understandable
- 3.1.1 Language of page:
langattribute set on<html> - 3.2.1 On focus: Focus does not trigger unexpected changes
- 3.2.2 On input: Input does not trigger unexpected changes without warning
- 3.3.1 Error identification: Errors clearly described in text
- 3.3.2 Labels or instructions: Form inputs have visible labels
- 3.3.3 Error suggestion: Error messages suggest fixes
Robust
- 4.1.1 Parsing: HTML valid (no duplicate IDs, proper nesting)
- 4.1.2 Name, role, value: Custom components have ARIA roles
- 4.1.3 Status messages: Dynamic content changes announced to screen readers
Got: WCAG 2.1 AA criteria checked with pass/fail per criterion. If fail: Use axe-core or Lighthouse for initial scan, then manual testing for criteria needing human judgement.
Step 3: Keyboard and Screen Reader Audit
Keyboard Navigation Test
Using only Tab, Shift+Tab, Enter, Space, Arrow keys, Escape:
## Keyboard Navigation Audit
| Task | Completable? | Issues |
|------|-------------|--------|
| Navigate to main content | Yes — skip link works | None |
| Open dropdown menu | Yes | Arrow keys don't work within menu |
| Submit a form | Yes | Tab order skips the submit button |
| Close a modal | No | Escape doesn't close, no visible close button in tab order |
| Use date picker | No | Custom date picker not keyboard accessible |
Screen Reader Test
Test with NVDA (Windows), VoiceOver (macOS/iOS), or TalkBack (Android):
## Screen Reader Audit
| Element | Announced As | Expected | Issue |
|---------|-------------|----------|-------|
| Logo link | "link, image" | "Home, link" | Missing alt text on logo |
| Search input | "edit, search" | "Search products, edit" | Missing label association |
| Nav menu | "navigation, main" | Correct | None |
| Error message | (not announced) | "Error: email is required" | Missing live region |
| Loading spinner | (not announced) | "Loading, please wait" | Missing aria-live or role="status" |
Got: Task flows tested with keyboard-only and screen reader. If fail: If screen reader unavailable, inspect ARIA attributes and semantic HTML as proxy.
Step 4: Analyse User Flows
Map and evaluate key user flows:
## User Flow: Complete a Purchase
### Steps
1. Browse products → 2. View product → 3. Add to cart → 4. View cart →
5. Enter shipping → 6. Enter payment → 7. Review order → 8. Confirm
### Assessment
| Step | Friction | Severity | Notes |
|------|---------|----------|-------|
| 1→2 | Low | - | Clear product cards |
| 2→3 | Medium | 2 | "Add to cart" button below the fold on mobile |
| 3→4 | Low | - | Cart icon updates with count |
| 4→5 | High | 3 | Must create account — no guest checkout |
| 5→6 | Low | - | Address autocomplete works well |
| 6→7 | Medium | 2 | Card number field doesn't auto-format |
| 7→8 | Low | - | Clear order summary |
### Flow Efficiency
- **Steps**: 8 (acceptable for e-commerce)
- **Required fields**: 14 (could reduce with address autocomplete + saved payment)
- **Decision points**: 2 (size selection, shipping method)
- **Potential drop-off points**: Step 4→5 (forced account creation)
Got: Critical user flows mapped with friction points rated. If fail: Without analytics, assess flows by task complexity and step count.
Step 5: Assess Cognitive Load
- Information density: Amount of information per screen appropriate?
- Progressive disclosure: Complex information revealed gradually?
- Chunking: Related items grouped visually (Gestalt principles)?
- Recognition over recall: Users see options rather than remember them?
- Consistent patterns: Similar tasks use similar interaction patterns?
- Decision fatigue: Too many choices at once? (Hick's law)
- Working memory: Users need to remember information across steps?
Got: Cognitive load assessed with overload or underload areas identified. If fail: Use the "squint test" — squint at the screen and check if structure and hierarchy remain apparent.
Step 6: Review Form Usability
For each form:
- Labels: Every input has a visible, associated label
- Placeholder text: Used for examples only, not as labels
- Input types: Correct HTML input types (email, tel, number, date)
- Validation timing: Errors shown on blur or submit, not every keystroke
- Error messages: Specific ("Email must include @") not generic ("Invalid input")
- Required fields: Clearly marked
- Field grouping: Related fields visually grouped
- Autocomplete:
autocompleteattributes for standard fields (name, email, address, cc-number) - Tab order: Logical flow matching visual layout
- Multi-step forms: Progress indicator shows current and total steps
- Persistence: Form data preserved if user navigates away and returns
Got: Each form assessed against the checklist with issues documented. If fail: With many forms, prioritize highest-traffic ones (registration, checkout, contact).
Step 7: Write the UX/UI Review
## UX/UI Review Report
### Executive Summary
[2-3 sentences: overall usability, most critical issues, strongest aspects]
### Heuristic Evaluation Summary
| Heuristic | Severity | Key Finding |
|-----------|----------|-------------|
[Summary table from Step 1]
### Accessibility Compliance
- **Target**: WCAG 2.1 AA
- **Status**: [X of Y criteria pass]
- **Critical failures**: [List]
### User Flow Analysis
[Key friction points with severity and recommendations]
### Top 5 Improvements (Prioritised)
1. **[Issue]** — Severity: [N] — [Specific recommendation]
2. ...
### What Works Well
1. [Specific positive observation]
2. ...
Got: Review provides prioritised, actionable recommendations with severity ratings. If fail: With too many issues, categorise into "must fix" (severity 3-4) and "should fix" (severity 1-2).
Validation
- All 10 Nielsen heuristics evaluated with severity ratings
- WCAG 2.1 criteria checked (at minimum: 1.1.1, 1.4.3, 2.1.1, 2.4.7, 3.3.1, 4.1.2)
- Keyboard navigation tested for key user flows
- Screen reader tested (or ARIA/semantic HTML reviewed as proxy)
- At least one critical user flow analysed for friction
- Cognitive load assessed
- Form usability evaluated
- Findings prioritised by severity with actionable recommendations
Pitfalls
- Confusing UX with visual design: UX is how it works; visual is how it looks. Beautiful interfaces can have terrible UX. Evaluate both but distinguish them.
- Testing only the happy path: Error states, empty states, loading states, and edge cases are where UX problems hide.
- Ignoring real devices: Browser dev tools responsive mode is a proxy. Real device testing catches touch, performance, and viewport issues.
- Accessibility as an afterthought: Accessibility issues found late are expensive to fix. Evaluate early and continuously.
- Personal preference as UX feedback: "I would prefer..." is not UX feedback. Cite heuristics, research, or established patterns.
Related Skills
review-web-design— visual design review (layout, typography, colour)scaffold-nextjs-app— Next.js application scaffoldingsetup-tailwind-typescript— Tailwind CSS for design system
Repositorio GitHub
Habilidades relacionadas
executing-plans
DiseñoUtilice la habilidad executing-plans cuando tenga un plan de implementación completo para ejecutar en lotes controlados con puntos de revisión. Esta habilidad carga y revisa críticamente el plan, luego ejecuta tareas en pequeños lotes (por defecto 3 tareas) mientras reporta el progreso entre cada lote para la revisión del arquitecto. Esto asegura una implementación sistemática con puntos de control de calidad integrados.
requesting-code-review
DiseñoEsta habilidad despacha un subagente revisor de código para analizar los cambios en el código frente a los requisitos antes de proceder. Debe usarse después de completar tareas, implementar funciones principales o antes de fusionar con la rama principal. La revisión ayuda a detectar problemas de forma temprana al comparar la implementación actual con el plan original.
connect-mcp-server
DiseñoEsta habilidad proporciona una guía integral para que los desarrolladores conecten servidores MCP a Claude Code mediante transportes HTTP, stdio o SSE. Cubre la instalación, configuración, autenticación y seguridad para integrar servicios externos como GitHub, Notion y APIs personalizadas. Úsala al configurar integraciones MCP, al configurar herramientas externas o al trabajar con el Protocolo de Contexto del Modelo de Claude.
web-cli-teleport
DiseñoEsta habilidad ayuda a los desarrolladores a elegir entre las interfaces web y CLI de Claude Code mediante el análisis de tareas, y luego permite la teletransportación fluida de sesiones entre estos entornos. Optimiza el flujo de trabajo gestionando el estado y el contexto de la sesión al cambiar entre web, CLI o móvil. Úsala para proyectos complejos que requieren diferentes herramientas en varias etapas.