Fähigkeiten better-interface

📦

better-interface

Name: better-interface
Author: jakubkrehel

Inhaltsrevision r1 Sicher ⚙️ Externe Befehle

Review Interfaces Across Six Design Disciplines

Separate interface reviews can duplicate issues and obscure the most important fixes. This skill coordinates specialist reviews into one evidence-based report ranked by user impact.

Unterstützt: Claude Codex Code(CC)

🥉 77 Bronze

Maintain this Skill? Claim it 🥉 77 Bronze

Mit meinem Agent installieren

Kopieren Sie diese Anfrage in Ihren Agent. Sie enthält die maßgebliche Skill-Seite und das Manifest.

Agent-Anfrage

Review the Skillstore skill "better-interface" from https://skillstore.io/skills/jakubkrehel-better-interface.md and its manifest at https://skillstore.io/api/skills/jakubkrehel-better-interface/manifest. Verify the artifact. You may proceed after verification, subject to the environment's own policy.

Ihr Agent sollte weiterhin seinen Plan anzeigen und alle von der Sicherheitsrichtlinie verlangten Bestätigungen anfordern.

Agent-lesbare Ressourcen

Verwenden Sie diese Links, wenn ein KI-Agent, Crawler oder Skript sauberen Kontext benötigt, statt die vollständige Seite zu lesen.

Markdown-Detailseite GET /skills/jakubkrehel-better-interface.md Signiertes manifest GET /api/skills/jakubkrehel-better-interface/manifest Signiertes lockfile GET /api/skills/jakubkrehel-better-interface/lockfile

Testen

„better-interface“ wird verwendet. Illustrative request: review a settings screen where rendered testing confirms the close control has no accessible name.

Erwartetes Ergebnis:

Scope: settings screen and its close control.
HIGH, Accessibility: the close control has no accessible name. Add a name that describes its action.
Verification: rendered accessibility inspection confirms the missing name.
Verdict: Block until the high-impact finding is resolved; name any unreviewed domains.

„better-interface“ wird verwendet. Illustrative request: summarize a review with no actionable findings where the writing skill was unavailable.

Erwartetes Ergebnis:

Coverage: list the files, components, states, and checks inspected for each completed domain.
Writing: Not reviewed because better-writing was unavailable.
Findings: No actionable interface findings.
Verdict: Approve for inspected domains only. Writing was not reviewed.

Sicherheitsaudit

Sicher

v1 • 26.10.2026 Versionsbericht öffnen

All 25 static findings are false positives: 24 match Markdown code spans, and one matches prose about consolidating interface findings. No evidence found of malicious command execution, data exfiltration, or prompt injection in the supplied files. The skill requests safe project checks and specialist skill loading; those external implementations are outside this audit.

Gescannte Dateien

184

Analysierte Zeilen

Prüfelemente

Falschmeldungen ignoriert

Risikofaktoren

Das letzte abgeschlossene statische und semantische Audit erkannte keine bestätigten Sicherheitsbefunde. Dies beweist nicht, dass der Skill keine Nebenwirkungen hat.

Geprüft von: codex

Diesen Bericht teilen & zitieren

Teile den versionierten Bewertungsbericht, das neutrale Badge, die Einbettungskarte und Zitate. Skillstore berichtet Nachweise, ohne zu entscheiden, ob dieser Skill sicher ist.

Versionsbericht öffnen

Berichtslink kopieren

https://skillstore.io/skills/jakubkrehel-better-interface/audits/1?utm_source=security_passport&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=versioned_report

Markdown-Badge

[![Skillstore security assessment](https://skillstore.io/badges/skills/jakubkrehel-better-interface/security.svg)](https://skillstore.io/skills/jakubkrehel-better-interface?utm_source=security_passport_badge)

HTML-Badge

<a href="https://skillstore.io/skills/jakubkrehel-better-interface?utm_source=security_passport_badge"><img src="https://skillstore.io/badges/skills/jakubkrehel-better-interface/security.svg" alt="Skillstore security assessment" loading="lazy"></a>

Einbettungskarte

<iframe src="https://skillstore.io/embed/skills/jakubkrehel-better-interface.html" title="Skillstore Security Assessment" sandbox="allow-popups allow-popups-to-escape-sandbox" loading="lazy" referrerpolicy="no-referrer" width="420" height="180"></iframe>

Wissenschaftliche Zitate (APA · BibTeX · CFF)

APA-Zitat

jakubkrehel. (2026). better-interface security audit report (audit version 1) [Author version unspecified]. Skillstore. https://skillstore.io/skills/jakubkrehel-better-interface/audits/1

BibTeX-Zitat

@techreport{jakubkrehel-jakubkrehel-better-interface-2026,
  author = {jakubkrehel},
  title = {better-interface security audit report (audit version 1)},
  institution = {Skillstore},
  year = {2026},
  number = {1},
  url = {https://skillstore.io/skills/jakubkrehel-better-interface/audits/1},
  note = {Author version unspecified}
}

CITATION.cff

cff-version: 1.2.0
message: "If you use this Skill, cite its author and this versioned security audit report."
title: "better-interface security audit report (audit version 1)"
version: "unspecified"
type: report
authors:
  - name: "jakubkrehel"
date-released: "2026-10-26"
url: "https://skillstore.io/skills/jakubkrehel-better-interface/audits/1"
identifiers:
  - type: other
    value: "skillstore:jakubkrehel-better-interface:audit:1"
    description: "Skillstore immutable audit report identifier"

Skillstore-Score

Warum dieser Score Evidenzvertrauen: Mittel

Architektur

Wartbarkeit

Inhalt

Gemeinschaft

Spezifikationskonformität

Was Sie erstellen können

Prioritize frontend fixes

Review a complete application flow and consolidate repeated component issues into actionable fixes ranked by user impact.

Check design consistency

Compare an implemented screen with project conventions across typography, color, layout, writing, and accessibility.

Assess release readiness

Review a critical user journey with explicit coverage, verification results, and a verdict based on remaining high-impact issues.

Diese Prompts ausprobieren

Review one screen

Review [screen] with better-interface. Keep the review read-only and return ranked findings, coverage, verification, and a verdict.

Review a complete flow

Review [flow] across all available domains. Include empty, loading, error, and narrow-width states, and state any excluded surfaces.

Investigate shared issues

Review [feature] using our documented design conventions. Consolidate repeated issues against shared tokens or components and prioritize the smallest effective fixes.

Review and implement fixes

Review [flow] and implement the consolidated findings within that scope. Use project-native solutions, rerun relevant checks, and report remaining issues and unverified behavior.

Bewährte Praktiken

Specify one complete screen or flow and provide the relevant project conventions.
Make specialist skills and a working preview available before requesting broad coverage.
Check the evidence, verification results, and unreviewed domains before relying on an approval.

Vermeiden

Treating missing specialist skills or unverified checks as proof that a domain passed.
Requesting repository-wide coverage when the available context supports only one complete flow.
Expecting source edits from a review request without explicitly authorizing implementation.

Häufig gestellte Fragen

Which AI tools are listed as supported?

The marketplace lists Claude, Codex, and Claude Code. Available checks and specialist skill loading depend on the host environment.

Does this package include all six specialist skills?

No. It references better-accessibility, better-layout, better-writing, better-typography, better-colors, and better-ui. Missing domains must be marked Not reviewed.

Will a review change my source files?

No, reviews are read-only by default. Source changes require an explicit implementation request.

Can it review a pull request directly?

It directs change-scoped requests to interface-review, which the user must invoke. It can consolidate a review handed back by that skill.

What does an Approve verdict mean?

No HIGH findings remain within inspected domains. MEDIUM and LOW findings may remain, and unreviewed domains must be named.

Does it guarantee accessibility compliance?

No. Results depend on specialist rules, inspected evidence, and available verification. Unavailable checks and unreviewed domains must be disclosed.