web-quality-audit

addyosmani/web-quality-skills · Agent Skill

網頁品質審核技能,用於分析網頁的Lighthouse風格的效能、可存取性、最佳實踐和SEO訊號等指標。

前往安裝 ↓

總覽

發布者addyosmani社群
儲存庫addyosmani/web-quality-skills ↗
技能資料夾web-quality-audit
星2,992
分支261
附帶檔案2
授權MIT
最近更新2026年8月24日
連結技能原始碼 ↗ · 儲存庫 ↗

Mozgi 檢查

我們在技能檔案中發現的內容。詳細資訊需訂閱。

安全性
中等風險 · 發現 1 個需要注意的地方
相容性
並非適用於所有系統
相似技能
找到 31 個相似技能
訂閱另含

安裝

技能就是一個含 SKILL.md 的資料夾。選擇你的代理,在專案根目錄的終端機(macOS、Linux 或 Windows 的 Git Bash)執行指令。

把提示貼到 Claude、Codex 或其他助理:它會自行檢查並安裝技能。

Install the “web-quality-audit” skill from mozgi.io (https://mozgi.io/skills/addyosmani-web-quality-audit/) for me.

1. Download the archive: https://mozgi.io/skills/addyosmani-web-quality-audit/download
   If it fails, take the skill folder from the source: https://github.com/addyosmani/web-quality-skills/tree/main/skills/web-quality-audit
2. Read SKILL.md and the other files. Check the skill is safe: no hidden commands, no sending data elsewhere, no scripts doing something other than described. If anything looks suspicious, stop and tell me.
3. Put the “web-quality-audit” folder into your agent's skills folder: .claude/skills/ for Claude Code, .agents/skills/ for Codex, .cursor/skills/ for Cursor, .gemini/skills/ for Gemini CLI. Inside the project if we are in one, otherwise in the home folder (~/.claude/skills/ etc.).
4. Make sure <skills folder>/web-quality-audit/SKILL.md exists.
5. Briefly tell me what this skill does and offer to try it on my task.

If you cannot do a step yourself, tell me what to click or type.

技能檔案

2 個檔案 下載 ZIP

安裝前請先檢視 SKILL.md 與相關檔案。點擊檔案即可預覽。

SKILL.md 內容

作者原文 · 唯讀

Web quality audit

Comprehensive quality review that combines live browser evidence with source inspection. Covers Performance, Accessibility, SEO, Best Practices, and Agentic Browsing without treating an aggregate score as proof of quality.

> Lighthouse 13+. The Performance category now uses shared Performance Insights across Lighthouse and the DevTools Performance panel (announcement ↗). Follow current insight names and evidence. Do not require removed audit IDs or automatically recreate their recommendations; some were retired because they were noisy, inactionable, or easy to over-recommend.

How it works

1. Establish the audit target: representative URLs, important states and journeys, public versus authenticated access, and mobile/desktop scope.

2. If a page can run, read the measurement workflow and collect a minimal live baseline before searching the codebase broadly.

3. Use runtime failures to localize source inspection. Keep measured findings separate from hypotheses found only in code.

4. Categorize by user impact and confidence, then make or recommend specific fixes.

5. Re-run equivalent automated checks and the affected manual flows. Report what is verified and what still needs field or human validation.

Tool routing

Use the best capability already available; do not block the audit on optional setup.

| Need | Preferred route | Fallback |

|------|-----------------|----------|

| Performance and Core Web Vitals | Record a browser performance trace and analyze focused insights; with Chrome DevTools MCP, use performance_start_trace then performance_analyze_insight | Lighthouse CLI or PageSpeed Insights lab data |

| Real-user performance | CrUX values included in current DevTools trace summaries | PageSpeed Insights/CrUX Vis; direct CrUX API only when a key is already available or automation is requested |

| Accessibility, SEO, Best Practices, Agentic Browsing | Run a live Lighthouse audit; with Chrome DevTools MCP, use lighthouse_audit | Category-specific Lighthouse CLI audits plus manual checks |

| Rendered semantics and interaction | Inspect the accessibility tree and exercise the UI; with Chrome DevTools MCP, use take_snapshot and focused evaluate_script | Browser/manual testing |

| Source smoke test | scripts/analyze.sh <path> | Direct source inspection |

Chrome DevTools MCP's lighthouse_audit intentionally excludes performance. Its navigation mode reloads the page; use snapshot mode when preserving the current authenticated or user-created state matters. The static analyzer is a fast smoke test, not a substitute for a rendered-page audit.

Audit categories

Performance

Core Web Vitals — Must pass for good page experience:

  • LCP (Largest Contentful Paint) < 2.5s. The largest visible element must render quickly. Optimize images, fonts, and server response time.
  • INP (Interaction to Next Paint) < 200ms. User interactions must feel instant. Reduce JavaScript execution time and break up long tasks.
  • CLS (Cumulative Layout Shift) < 0.1. Content must not jump around. Set explicit dimensions on images, embeds, and ads.

Resource Optimization:

  • Compress images. Use WebP/AVIF with fallbacks. Serve correctly sized images via srcset.
  • Minimize JavaScript. Remove unused code. Use code splitting. Defer non-critical scripts.
  • Optimize CSS. Extract critical CSS. Remove unused styles. Avoid @import.
  • Efficient fonts. Use font-display: swap. Preload critical fonts. Subset to needed characters.

Loading Strategy:

  • Preconnect to origins. Add <link rel="preconnect"> for third-party domains.
  • Preload critical assets. LCP images, fonts, and above-fold CSS.
  • Lazy load below-fold content. Images, iframes, and heavy components.
  • Cache effectively. Long cache TTLs for static assets. Immutable caching for hashed files.

Accessibility

Perceivable:

  • Text alternatives. Every <img> has meaningful alt text. Decorative images use alt="".
  • Color contrast. Minimum 4.5:1 for normal text, 3:1 for large text (WCAG AA).
  • Don't rely on color alone. Use icons, patterns, or text alongside color indicators.
  • Captions and transcripts. Video has captions. Audio has transcripts.

Operable:

  • Keyboard accessible. All functionality available via keyboard. No keyboard traps.
  • Focus visible. Clear focus indicators on all interactive elements.
  • Skip links. Provide "Skip to main content" for keyboard users.
  • Sufficient time. Users can extend time limits. No auto-advancing content without controls.

Understandable:

  • Page language. Set lang attribute on <html>.
  • Consistent navigation. Same navigation structure across pages.
  • Error identification. Form errors clearly described and associated with fields.
  • Labels and instructions. All form inputs have associated labels.

Robust:

  • Valid HTML. No duplicate IDs. Properly nested elements.
  • ARIA used correctly. Prefer native elements. ARIA roles match behavior.
  • Name, role, value. Interactive elements have accessible names and correct roles.

SEO

Crawlability:

  • Valid robots.txt. Doesn't block important resources.
  • XML sitemap. Lists all important pages. Submitted to Search Console.
  • Canonical URLs. Prevent duplicate content issues.
  • No noindex on important pages. Check meta robots and headers.

On-Page SEO:

  • Unique title tags. Make each title descriptive and concise; display truncation varies by device and result type.
  • Meta descriptions. Write useful, page-specific summaries; search engines may choose a different snippet.
  • Heading hierarchy. The primary heading is descriptive and the structure is logical; do not fail valid HTML solely for using more than one <h1>.
  • Descriptive link text. Not "click here" or "read more".

Technical SEO:

  • Mobile-friendly. Responsive design. Tap targets ≥ 48px.
  • HTTPS. Secure connection required.
  • Page experience signals. Use field Core Web Vitals as evidence, without promising a ranking change.
  • Structured data. JSON-LD for rich snippets (Article, Product, FAQ, etc.).

Best practices

Security:

  • HTTPS everywhere. No mixed content. HSTS enabled.
  • No vulnerable libraries. Keep dependencies updated.
  • CSP headers. Content Security Policy to prevent XSS.
  • No exposed source maps. In production builds.

Modern Standards:

  • No deprecated APIs. Replace document.write, synchronous XHR, etc.
  • Valid doctype. Use <!DOCTYPE html>.
  • Charset declared. <meta charset="UTF-8"> as first element in <head>.
  • No browser errors. Clean console. No CORS issues.

UX Patterns:

  • No intrusive interstitials. Especially on mobile.
  • Clear permission requests. Only ask when needed, with context.
  • No misleading buttons. Buttons do what they say.

Agentic browsing

Use the Lighthouse Agentic Browsing results as technical signals for how well assistants can understand and interact with the rendered page.

  • Accessible interaction surface. Semantic HTML, labels, names, roles, and states must expose meaningful controls in the accessibility tree.
  • WebMCP integrations are valid when present. Review registered tools, schemas, and form coverage; do not add WebMCP solely to raise an audit score.
  • llms.txt is optional. A valid file may help compatible tools discover curated content, but a Lighthouse pass does not prove that search or AI products will ingest, rank, or cite it.
  • Keep this category separate from SEO claims. Agentic browsability is not evidence of search ranking or AI visibility.

Severity levels

| Level | Description | Action |

|-------|-------------|--------|

| Critical | Security vulnerabilities, complete failures | Fix immediately |

| High | Core Web Vitals failures, major a11y barriers | Fix before launch |

| Medium | Performance opportunities, SEO improvements | Fix within sprint |

| Low | Minor optimizations, code quality | Fix when convenient |

Audit output format

When performing an audit, structure findings as:

## Audit results

### Evidence
| Signal | Scope/conditions | Result | Source |
|--------|------------------|--------|--------|
| LCP | URL, phone, p75/28 days | 3.1s (needs improvement) | CrUX |
| Accessibility | URL, mobile navigation | 92 | Lighthouse |

### Critical issues (X found)
- **[Category]** Issue description. File: `path/to/file.js:123`
  - **Impact:** Why this matters
  - **Evidence:** Measured failure, runtime observation, or source hypothesis
  - **Fix:** Specific code change or recommendation

### High priority (X found)
...

### Summary
- Performance: measured status and X findings
- Accessibility: automated status, X findings, manual checks pending/passed
- SEO: X findings
- Best Practices: X findings
- Agentic Browsing: X findings or not available

### Recommended priority
1. First fix this because...
2. Then address...
3. Finally optimize...

### Verification
- Re-run results under the same conditions
- Manual checks completed
- Field validation still pending

Quick checklist

Before every deploy

  • [ ] Core Web Vitals passing
  • [ ] No accessibility errors (axe/Lighthouse)
  • [ ] No console errors
  • [ ] HTTPS working
  • [ ] Meta tags present

Weekly review

  • [ ] Check Search Console for issues
  • [ ] Review Core Web Vitals trends
  • [ ] Update dependencies
  • [ ] Test with screen reader

Monthly deep dive

  • [ ] Full Lighthouse audit
  • [ ] Performance profiling
  • [ ] Accessibility audit with real users
  • [ ] SEO keyword review

References

For detailed guidelines on specific areas:

  • Performance Optimization
  • Core Web Vitals
  • Accessibility
  • SEO
  • Best Practices

常見問題

web-quality-audit 技能有什麼用途?

網頁品質審核技能,用於分析網頁的Lighthouse風格的效能、可存取性、最佳實踐和SEO訊號等指標。

如何安裝 web-quality-audit?

打開本頁的「安裝」區塊並選擇你的代理 — Claude Code、Codex、Cursor 或 Gemini CLI:那裡有把技能資料夾複製到正確位置的現成指令。也可以複製「透過助理」分頁中的提示,讓助理自行檢查並安裝技能。

web-quality-audit 適用哪些 AI 模型?

技能是純 Markdown 指示(Agent Skills 格式),因此 web-quality-audit 適用任何讀取 SKILL.md 的代理:Claude Code、Codex、Cursor、Gemini CLI、GitHub Copilot、OpenCode 等。只有在任務符合技能描述時,模型才會載入指示。

web-quality-audit 是免費的嗎?

此技能由 addyosmani 公開發布,採用 MIT 授權。技能本身免費 — 你只需向 AI 供應商支付實際使用的 token 費用。

安裝技能安全嗎?

技能是代理會遵循的指示,安裝前請閱讀 SKILL.md 及相關檔案。技能資料夾中的腳本只有在代理執行時才會運行 — 留意它的動作,不要授予多餘權限。

技能和 MCP 伺服器或外掛有何不同?

MCP 伺服器或外掛為模型提供新工具 — 會執行並回傳結果的程式碼。技能提供的是知識與流程:如何處理任務、要遵循哪些步驟、好的成果長什麼樣子。它不需要伺服器或 API 金鑰。

相關技能

所有技能 →