A developer's inspector for the page you already have open. It names the technologies behind it and shows the evidence for each, extracts the palette, fonts and assets, and scores how much of the page reads as raw AI output. It reads one tab, when you ask.
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.
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?
the click-to-element part is probably my favorite. much easier to judge a finding when you can actually see what triggered it.
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.
About LoupeKit on Product Hunt
“See what any page is built with and how much of it is AI”
LoupeKit launched on Product Hunt on August 26th, 2026 and earned 102 upvotes and 12 comments, placing #17 on the daily leaderboard. A developer's inspector for the page you already have open. It names the technologies behind it and shows the evidence for each, extracts the palette, fonts and assets, and scores how much of the page reads as raw AI output. It reads one tab, when you ask.
LoupeKit was featured in Browser Extensions (5.4k followers), Developer Tools (518.5k followers) and Vibe coding (650 followers) on Product Hunt. Together, these topics include over 85.6k products, making this a competitive space to launch in.
Who hunted LoupeKit?
LoupeKit was hunted by Ján Turský. A “hunter” on Product Hunt is the community member who submits a product to the platform — uploading the images, the link, and tagging the makers behind it. Hunters typically write the first comment explaining why a product is worth attention, and their followers are notified the moment they post. Around 79% of featured launches on Product Hunt are self-hunted by their makers, but a well-known hunter still acts as a signal of quality to the rest of the community. See the full all-time top hunters leaderboard to discover who is shaping the Product Hunt ecosystem.
Want to see how LoupeKit stacked up against nearby launches in real time? Check out the live launch dashboard for upvote speed charts, proximity comparisons, and more analytics.
Ján Turský
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