screen-locker/docs/design-audit/DOCS-audit-gatelock-tokens.md

Shared gatelock library

~/src/utils/gatelock is not its own git repo — git -C ~/src/utils/gatelock rev-parse --show-toplevel resolves to /home/kuhy/src/utils, so it's a subdirectory of the ~/src/utils monorepo. Per audit scope, gatelock itself was not walked against all 28 rules and no separate ~/src/utils/gatelock/DESIGN_AUDIT_TODO.md was written.

What's relevant here: gatelock defines exactly one real design token — LockConfig.bg: str = "#1a1a1a" (~/src/utils/gatelock/gatelock/_window.py:71), applied via self.root.configure(bg=self._config.bg, ...) in LockWindow.setup() (_window.py:143). Both consumer repos re-hardcode this same literal instead of reading it back off their own LockConfig instance:

• screen-locker (this repo) — #1a1a1a appears 31 times across 9 files (see the Tkinter section above) despite screen_lock.py:148-153 constructing a LockConfig instance (as config) just a few lines above each of those files' widget-creation call sites.
• diet-guard — not inspected as part of this audit (out of scope for this repo's report), but per the shared-infra note in the task, it is the other known consumer of LockConfig/LockWindow and should be checked for the same duplication pattern if/when a design audit is run there.

Fixing the screen-locker Rule 4 finding above by having widget-creation code read self._lock_config.bg (threaded through from the LockConfig already built in ScreenLocker.__init__) instead of re-typing "#1a1a1a" would close this loop without needing any gatelock-side change.