Skip to content
UX Atlas
Plate AI·001 · AI workflowGrid H6 · Rev. 2026-08-14

Screenshot to UX Audit

Using a vision model for a first-pass heuristic review, which is good at obvious defects and blind to context.

AI workflowCraft conventionIntermediate

Definition

Give a model a screenshot and a defined heuristic framework, and ask for issues against each heuristic. The output is a candidate list to verify, comparable to a junior reviewer's first pass.

Craft convention. True because the industry converged on it. Breaking it costs familiarity, not correctness.

On this plate
  1. 1Definition
  2. 2Running it
  3. 3A prompt that produces checkable output
  4. 4Where it genuinely helps
  5. 5Local chart
  6. 6Continue from here

Reach for this when

  • A fast first pass across many screens.
  • Before a proper heuristic evaluation, to clear obvious issues.
  • Reviewing your own work for blind spots.

Common mistakes

  • Treating model output as findings without verification.
  • No context supplied, producing generic advice.
  • Using it in place of testing with users.

Running it

  1. 1

    Supply context first

    Who the users are, what the primary task on this screen is, and what constraints apply. Without this the model reviews a generic interface.

  2. 2

    Name the framework

    Ask for a review against Nielsen's ten heuristics, or against a specific list, so the output is structured and checkable.

  3. 3

    Ask for evidence

    Require each issue to name the element, the heuristic and the likely consequence, so you can verify it.

  4. 4

    Ask for severity and rationale

    Frequency, impact and persistence, with the reasoning stated.

  5. 5

    Verify every item

    Check each finding against the real interface before it enters a report.

A prompt that produces checkable output

text
Review this screen against Nielsen's ten usability heuristics.

Context:
- Product: [what it is]
- Primary user: [who, and their expertise]
- Primary task on this screen: [the one thing]
- Constraints: [platform, regulatory, technical]

For each issue return:
1. Heuristic violated
2. The specific element, described so I can find it
3. What a user would experience
4. Severity (critical / high / medium / low) with reasoning
5. A concrete change, not a general principle

Do not list issues you cannot see evidence for in the image.
If the screenshot does not show enough to judge something, say so.

Where it genuinely helps

  • Catching obvious contrast, hierarchy and label problems quickly across many screens.
  • Producing a structured first draft that a reviewer edits rather than writes.
  • Reviewing your own work, where the curse of knowledge is strongest.
  • Generating a checklist of things to verify manually.

Local chart

AI·001 · Region XII · Grid H6

This entry and the entries it is stated to connect with. Each line is labelled with what the connection means.

Each link says what the connection is, so you can tell a principle from an alternative from a thing people mix this up with.

Principles behind this

The reasoning this solution is an application of.

Often used with

These usually appear in the same screen or the same decision.

Check your work

Review passes that test whether this was done properly.

Related concept

Connected closely enough to change how you apply this.