SLDS Quality Audit
Audit Lightning Web Components for SLDS compliance and produce an automated scorecard plus a required manual review gate. Combines SLDS linter output with supplementary static analysis to catch what the linter misses.
Scope
Also valid for: auditing SLDS compliance across a project or component set, and before/after quality comparison after making changes.
Not for:
- Fixing linter violations — use
design-systems-slds2-migrateinstead - Building new components — use
design-systems-slds-applyinstead - Just running the linter — run
npx @salesforce-ux/slds-linter@latest lint .directly - Full WCAG accessibility audit — this skill checks attribute presence only (labels, alt text, focus indicators), not contrast ratios, keyboard flows, or screen reader behavior
- Framework-specific template auditing beyond
.css,.html, and.jsfiles — JSX/TSX/Vue/Svelte outputs need additional manual review
---
Quality Validation Process
1. Run SLDS Linter → Collect violation counts (linter's job)
2. Run Analyze Script → Check what linter doesn't cover (supplementary)
3. Agent Review → Required manual review gate
4. Score & Grade → Compute automated score + final recommendation
5. Generate Report → Produce formatted scorecardStep 1: Run SLDS Linter
Run the linter to collect baseline violation data:
npx @salesforce-ux/slds-linter@latest lint <component-path> 2>&1Count violations by rule. These feed directly into the Linter Compliance score:
| Rule | Impact |
|---|---|
slds/class-override | Breaks theming, dark mode |
slds/lwc-token-to-slds-hook | SLDS 1 technical debt |
slds/no-hardcoded-values | Breaks theming, accessibility |
Linter Compliance Score = 100 - (total_violations × 10), minimum 0.
If the linter is unavailable (no Node.js, no network access, CI sandbox restrictions): skip this step, note "Linter not run" in the report header, mark Linter Compliance as N/A, and compute the Overall score using the remaining 4 categories renormalized to 100%:
Overall (linter unavailable) = (Theming × 0.29) + (Accessibility × 0.29)
+ (CodeQuality × 0.21) + (ComponentUsage × 0.21)Step 2: Run Supplementary Analysis
Run the analyze script to catch issues the linter doesn't cover. The bundled analyzer scans .css, .html, and .js files only:
node scripts/analyze-quality.cjs <component-path>The script outputs JSON with findings organized by severity. It checks:
CSS Checks (linter-complementary)
| Check | What It Catches | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Missing fallbacks | var(--slds-g-*) without a fallback value | Critical |
| Invented hooks (T051) | --slds-g-* tokens not found in hooks-index.json (requires --hooks-index) | Critical |
| Hook pairing | Background hooks without matching foreground hooks | Warning |
!important | Specificity overrides | Warning |
| Magic pixel values | Hardcoded px not using spacing hooks | Warning |
| High z-index | z-index values > 99 | Warning |
| Outline removal | outline: none without alternative focus style | Warning |
JS Checks
| Check | What It Catches | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| Inline style assignment | .style.*= direct property assignment | Warning |
| SLDS class manipulation | Dynamic .classList.add('slds-*') manipulation | Warning |
HTML Checks
| Check | What It Catches | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| LBC input labels | <lightning-input> without label attribute | Critical |
| Icon alt text | <lightning-icon> without alternative-text | Critical |
| Image alt text | <img> without alt | Critical |
| Heading hierarchy | Skipped heading levels (h2 to h4) | Warning |
| Positive tabindex | tabindex values other than 0 or -1 | Warning |
| Clickable divs | <div onclick> instead of <button> | Warning |
| Inline styles | style="..." attributes | Warning |
| Native elements | <input>, <button>, <select> where LBC alternatives exist | Warning |
Hook Pairing Validation
The script checks that background/foreground hooks are semantically paired:
surface-* backgrounds → on-surface-* text
surface-container-* bg → on-surface-* text
accent-* backgrounds → on-accent-* text
accent-container-* bg → on-accent-* textLimitation: Hook pairing is checked at the file level, not per-selector. A file with
surface-1in.classAandon-accent-1in.classBwould pass because both surface and accent families are present. Review pairing correctness per-selector during manual review (Step 3).
Invented Hook Detection (T051)
The script cross-references every --slds-g-* token in CSS against hooks-index.json. Any hook not found in metadata is flagged as critical — this catches the most common agent mistake of inventing hooks from naming patterns.
Step 3: Agent Manual Review
These checks require understanding the component's purpose and cannot be automated reliably. Review each and classify findings as either:
- Blocking — incorrect blueprint structure, missing required states, or semantic/interaction issues that make the component not production-ready
- Advisory — worthwhile improvements that do not block shipping on their own
| Review Area | What to Look For |
|---|---|
| Loading states | Does the component show a spinner or skeleton when fetching data? |
| Error states | Are errors surfaced to the user with actionable messages? |
| Empty states | Is there a meaningful empty state when no data exists? |
| Disabled states | Do interactive elements visually and functionally handle disabled? |
| Semantic HTML | Are <nav>, <article>, <section> used where appropriate? |
| SLDS blueprint compliance | Do cards, modals, forms follow SLDS blueprint structure? |
Manual review findings are not automated, but they do affect the final recommendation. Do not report an automated grade as the only verdict.
Step 4: Calculate Automated Scores and Final Recommendation
Component Complexity
Before scoring, classify the component to give the score context:
| Complexity | Criteria | Report Note |
|---|---|---|
| Small | 1-2 files, < 100 total lines | Score is high-confidence (small surface area) |
| Medium | 3-6 files, 100-500 total lines | Score reflects typical component |
| Large | 7+ files, 500+ total lines | Score reflects absolute issue count — even well-built large components may score lower |
Include the complexity classification in the report header. This prevents misreading a "B" on a 1000-line component vs. a "B" on a 20-line component.
Automated Scoring Formula
Category Score = 100 - (critical_issues × 10) - (warnings × 3) - (info × 1)
Minimum score: 0Categories and Weights
| Category | Weight | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Linter Compliance | 30% | SLDS linter output (Step 1) |
| Theming | 20% | Script: fallbacks, hook pairing (Step 2) |
| Accessibility | 20% | Script: labels, alt text, focus (Step 2) |
| Code Quality | 15% | Script: !important, inline styles, z-index (Step 2) |
| Component Usage | 15% | Script: native elements (Step 2) plus manual semantic/blueprint review (Step 3) |
Automated Overall Score
Overall = (Linter × 0.30) + (Theming × 0.20) + (Accessibility × 0.20)
+ (CodeQuality × 0.15) + (ComponentUsage × 0.15)Automated Grade Thresholds
| Score | Grade | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| 90-100 | A | Excellent automated score |
| 80-89 | B | Good automated score |
| 70-79 | C | Acceptable automated score |
| 60-69 | D | Weak automated score |
| 0-59 | F | Failing automated score |
Manual Review Gate
After computing the automated score, apply the manual review outcome:
| Gate | When to use it | Effect on final recommendation |
|---|---|---|
| Pass | No manual findings | Final recommendation can follow the automated score |
| Advisory | Only non-blocking manual findings | Final recommendation can be "Ready with follow-ups" at best |
| Blocking | One or more blocking manual findings | Final recommendation is not ready for production, regardless of automated grade |
Final Recommendation Rules
Use both the automated score and the manual review gate:
| Final Recommendation | Conditions |
|---|---|
| Ready for production | Automated grade A/B, no critical findings, manual gate = Pass |
| Ready with follow-ups | Automated grade A/B, no critical findings, manual gate = Advisory |
| Needs work | Any critical findings, automated grade C/D, or manual gate = Blocking |
| Failing | Automated grade F |
Step 5: Generate Quality Report
Use the template in report-format.md to produce the final report. Default to the compact format for initial output and expand sections on request.
The report includes:
- Executive summary with automated grade and final recommendation
- Manual review gate outcome (
Pass,Advisory, orBlocking) - Scores by category with visual indicators
- Detailed findings organized by severity
- Specific code locations and recommendations
- Checklist of required actions
---
Quick Validation Mode
For a rapid quality check without full analysis:
- Run linter:
npx @salesforce-ux/slds-linter@latest lint <path> - Count violations by type
- Report summary only
Quick Quality Check: <component-name>
─────────────────────────────────────
Linter Violations:
• Class Override: 0
• Deprecated Tokens: 3
• Hardcoded Values: 5
Quick Automated Grade: C (estimated)
Run full validation for detailed report.---
Edge Cases and False Positives
| Situation | Guidance |
|---|---|
| Headless components (JS-only, no HTML) | Skip HTML checks; score only CSS + linter categories |
| Wrapper/container components | May legitimately have minimal CSS; don't penalize low hook usage |
| Intentional native elements | <button> inside custom SLDS blueprints is correct; suppress C002 if inside an slds-* blueprint structure |
| Components outside LEX | LWR/Experience Cloud components may not use Lightning Base Components; note context in report |
| Test/demo components | Lower the bar — note in report but don't block on warnings |
If a check produces a false positive, note it in the report as "suppressed" with justification rather than silently dropping it.
---
References
- Quality Checks - Complete list of all quality checks with detection patterns
- Report Format - Quality report template and formatting guide
- Analyze Script - Automated analysis for linter-complementary checks
- design-systems-slds2-migrate skill - How to fix linter violations
- design-systems-slds-apply skill - Guide for building new components with correct patterns
