ux-semantics-audit

# UX Audit Evaluate UI code against a curated set of verifiable UX rules and emit findings a coding agent can directly act on. This is a *linter for UX semantics*, not an aesthetic critique: the goal is high-precision, evidence-backed findings, not a wall of vague suggestions. ## Design philosophy (read this — it shapes every judgment call) 1. **Precision over recall.** A false positive costs more than a miss: the consuming coding agent will "fix" a non-problem and degrade the design. When in doubt, don't flag. 2. **No evidence, no finding.** Every finding must cite the exact file, line range, and quoted code snippet that demonstrates the violation. If you cannot point at the code, the finding does not exist. 3. **Exceptions are where precision lives.** Each rule in `references/rules.md` has an enumerated exceptions list. Before flagging, check the exceptions. A candidate that matches an exception is a pass, not a "borderline flag." 4. **Severity is trust calibration.** `block` findings are mechanical and near-certain — the agent should fix all of them. `warn` findings involve judgment — the agent should consider them and may reasonably decline with a reason. Never promote a judgment call to `block`. 5. **Feedback must be constructive and specific.** Every finding includes a concrete suggested fix expressed in terms of the actual code, not a restatement of the rule. ## Workflow ### Step 1 — Scope the audit Identify the unit of analysis: the **view**. A view is a screen,...