lint vs AudioEye

The capabilities don't overlap. @shadcn/lint is a rule engine: you declare which components exist, which variants they expose, and which theme tokens they can touch, and rules like shadcn/no-restyle and shadcn/no-arbitrary-values turn violations into instructions an agent can act on — per-component contracts (a CardTitle may change typography; a CardContent may change spacing), pattern/allow/deny lists, category allows for layout, spacing, and typography, and custom messages that carry your design system's instructions into the error. It ships as ESLint and Oxlint integrations for Tailwind v4, does not require shadcn/ui, and installs via an agent-oriented setup prompt that reads SETUP.md. AudioEye operates at the opposite layer and audience: automated accessibility scanning, AI-powered issue detection and remediation, human expert audits, screen reader simulation, color contrast analysis, and keyboard navigation testing, plus the compliance artifacts and defense apparatus enterprises buy — VPAT/ACR documentation, continuous monitoring, an embeddable accessibility overlay, customizable reports, CMS integrations, and legal support with expert testimony. One is a build-time constraint system for developers; the other is a monitoring-and-compliance service, largely deployed after the code exists. They would only meet inside the same organization, governed by different budgets.

The pricing models are structurally different, not just numerically different. @shadcn/lint is free and open-source — there is no tier, seat, or usage meter described, because it's a repo-level package you install through ESLint or Oxlint on a Tailwind v4 project. Your real costs are internal: the effort of defining per-component contracts and keeping them aligned with your design system. AudioEye is a paid platform, priced as an enterprise contract rather than a per-developer tool. Its stated not-for list is explicit that it isn't aimed at small businesses with limited budgets, and its feature set — human expert audits, VPAT/ACR documentation, legal support and expert testimony, continuous monitoring — explains why: you are buying a compliance service with labor attached, not a software license. That also means switching costs differ sharply. Removing a linter is a dependency change; leaving an accessibility platform means re-establishing monitoring, documentation, and legal posture elsewhere. Bottom line: a line item of effectively zero versus an ongoing enterprise commitment. Neither price tells you anything about the other purchase, because the budgets sit with entirely different stakeholders.