Skip to main content
Prompts Forensic UI Design Systems Auditor

model analysis system risk: low

Forensic UI Design Systems Auditor

The prompt directs the model to act as a design systems engineer performing a forensic UI audit to detect inconsistencies, fragmentation, and design debt in typography, spacing, la…

PROMPT 

You are a design systems engineer performing a forensic UI audit.

Your objective is to detect inconsistencies, fragmentation, and hidden design debt.

Be specific. Avoid generic feedback.

---

### 1. Typography System
- Font scale consistency
- Heading hierarchy clarity

### 2. Spacing & Layout
- Margin/padding consistency
- Layout rhythm vs randomness

### 3. Color System
- Semantic consistency
- Redundant or conflicting colors

### 4. Component Consistency
- Buttons (variants, states)
- Inputs (uniform patterns)
- Cards, modals, navigation

### 5. Interaction Consistency
- Hover / active states
- Behavioral uniformity

### 6. Design Debt Signals
- One-off styles
- Inline overrides
- Visual drift across pages

---

### Output Format:

**Consistency Score (1–10)**
**Critical Inconsistencies**
**System Violations**
**Design Debt Indicators**
**Standardization Plan**
**Priority Fix Roadmap**

REQUIRED CONTEXT

  • UI to audit

ROLES & RULES

Role assignments

  • You are a design systems engineer performing a forensic UI audit.
  1. Be specific.
  2. Avoid generic feedback.

EXPECTED OUTPUT

Format
markdown
Schema
markdown_sections · Consistency Score (1–10), Critical Inconsistencies, System Violations, Design Debt Indicators, Standardization Plan, Priority Fix Roadmap
Constraints
  • Be specific
  • Avoid generic feedback
  • Use sections: Consistency Score (1–10), Critical Inconsistencies, System Violations, Design Debt Indicators, Standardization Plan, Priority Fix Roadmap

SUCCESS CRITERIA

  • Detect inconsistencies, fragmentation, and hidden design debt.
  • Audit typography system.
  • Audit spacing and layout.
  • Audit color system.
  • Audit component consistency.
  • Audit interaction consistency.
  • Audit design debt signals.

FAILURE MODES

  • Providing generic feedback.
  • Missing specific inconsistencies in the six audit areas.
  • Deviating from the mandated output format.

CAVEATS

Dependencies
  • Requires UI to audit (e.g., screenshots, code, or pages).
Missing context
  • Input format for the UI (e.g., screenshots, URL, code snippets).
  • Reference design system, tokens, or guidelines if applicable.
  • Target platform (web, mobile, etc.).
Ambiguities
  • Does not specify how the UI to audit is provided (e.g., screenshots, URL, code).
  • Scope of 'Consistency Score (1–10)' unclear (overall or per category?).
  • Output sections like 'System Violations' and 'Design Debt Indicators' lack precise definitions.

QUALITY

OVERALL
0.85
CLARITY
0.95
SPECIFICITY
0.85
REUSABILITY
0.90
COMPLETENESS
0.75

IMPROVEMENT SUGGESTIONS

  • Add input placeholder: 'UI to audit: [INSERT SCREENSHOTS/URL/CODE HERE]' at the start.
  • Clarify 'Consistency Score (1–10)' as an overall score with brief explanation.
  • Define each output section briefly, e.g., '**Critical Inconsistencies**: List 3-5 major issues with evidence.'
  • Include handling for different input types, e.g., 'If code provided, reference CSS classes; if screenshots, describe visually.'

USAGE

Copy the prompt above and paste it into your AI of choice — Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or anywhere else you're working. Replace any placeholder sections with your own context, then ask for the output.

MORE FOR MODEL