LoupeKit

Hey Hunters 👋

There is a lot of vibe-coded software out there now — and I could not tell what was what.

Not in a judgy way. I ship fast too. But I kept opening pages where something was off: forty classes on one div, eleven nested
wrappers around a single paragraph, an aria-label on a button that already had a name. You feel it before you can point at it.

So I went looking for a way to check. What I found was either a linter I had to wire into a repo I do not own, or a paste-your-code
box, or a model asked to guess. All of them answer a different question. I am not holding the codebase — I am looking at a page.

So I built LoupeKit: the check, on the page, in one click 🔍

1. A 0-100 score across five weighted categories — markup, CSS, runtime, copy, accessibility
2. 66 heuristics, each finding saying exactly what it measured and what to change
3. Click a finding and the page scrolls to that element and selects it — you look at the thing, not at a line number

That third one is what I actually wanted. A number on its own is an opinion. A number that walks you to the element it is talking
about is a review.

The hard part was calibration, in the direction nobody expects: getting it to leave careful hand-written work alone. A tool that
flags good code is worse than no tool — you stop reading it, and then it never catches the real thing either.

One decision I would defend loudest: no website permission at install. Empty host_permissions in both builds. It reads the tab you
are on, when you click, and nothing in the background.

Free tier is 3 audits, everything else unlimited. Chrome, Edge, Firefox and others.

Enjoy!
— Jan

the click-to-element part is probably my favorite. much easier to judge a finding when you can actually see what triggered it.

The site I do SEO for has dozens of near-identical format pages, MKV to MP4, MOV to MP4 and so on, templated on purpose rather than written by a model. Does your score separate formulaic-by-design from actually generated, or would a page like that light up red?

Forty classes on one div is Tailwind working as intended, not evidence of a model. That's my worry with the AI score specifically: the signals you opened with measure sloppiness, and sloppiness only correlates with AI, so a careful Tailwind page and a lazily prompted one land in the same band. The markup and accessibility findings are defensible because each one walks you to a real element you can go argue with. A score for AI authorship is the one number nobody can check, which makes it the one most likely to be quietly wrong.