agentleFS
Sign inStart free
Community-AccessCommunity-Access/accessibility-agents/.github/skills/report-generation/SKILL.md

report-generation

Skill409 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub

Format accessibility audit reports with severity scoring (0-100, A-F grades), scorecard computation, and compliance exports including VPAT/ACR and remediation priorities.

3 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

7 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈6

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Default output: DOCUMENT-ACCESSIBILITY-AUDIT.md in the project root.

    line 10
  2. Distinctive:

    Every audit report MUST include these sections:

    line 14
  3. Distinctive:

    Metadata Dashboard: - document properties health

    line 24
  4. Distinctive:

    Template Analysis: - when batch scanning detects shared templates

    line 29
  5. Distinctive:

    Comparison Report: - when re-scanning against a baseline

    line 30
  6. Distinctive:

    CI/CD Recommendations: - when no config files exist

    line 31
  7. Distinctive:

    When comparing against a baseline audit report:

    line 88

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Report Generation

Report File

Default output: DOCUMENT-ACCESSIBILITY-AUDIT.md in the project root.

Required Sections

Every audit report MUST include these sections:

  1. Audit Information - date, auditor, profile, scope, counts
  2. Executive Summary - totals, pass rate, most common issue, effort estimate
  3. Cross-Document Patterns - recurring issues, systemic failures
  4. Findings by File - per-document issues with rule ID, severity, location, WCAG, impact, remediation
  5. Findings by Rule (Cross-Reference) - rule-level aggregation across files
  6. What Passed - acknowledge clean documents and categories
  7. Remediation Priority - ordered by impact (Immediate / Soon / When Possible)
  8. Accessibility Scorecard - per-document scores and grades
  9. Metadata Dashboard - document properties health
  10. Confidence Summary - breakdown by confidence level

Optional Sections (include when applicable)

  • Template Analysis - when batch scanning detects shared templates
  • Comparison Report - when re-scanning against a baseline
  • CI/CD Recommendations - when no config files exist

Severity Scoring Formula

Document Score = 100 - (sum of weighted findings)

Weights:
  Error (high confidence):   -10 points
  Error (medium confidence):  -7 points
  Error (low confidence):     -3 points
  Warning (high confidence):  -3 points
  Warning (medium confidence):-2 points
  Warning (low confidence):   -1 point
  Tips:                        0 points

Floor: 0 (minimum score)

Score Grades

ScoreGradeMeaning
90-100AExcellent - minor or no issues
75-89BGood - some warnings, few errors
50-74CNeeds Work - multiple errors
25-49DPoor - significant accessibility barriers
0-24FFailing - critical barriers, likely unusable with AT

Organization Modes

ModeDescriptionBest For
By fileGroup all issues under each documentSmall batches (< 10 files)
By issue typeGroup all instances of each rule across documentsSeeing patterns
By severityCritical first, then serious, moderate, minorPrioritizing fixes

VPAT/ACR Compliance Export

Conformance Levels

LevelCriteria
SupportsNo findings for this WCAG criterion across any document
Partially SupportsSome documents pass, some fail
Does Not SupportAll or most documents fail
Not ApplicableCriterion does not apply to scanned document types

Supported VPAT Editions

  • VPAT 2.5 (WCAG) - maps to WCAG 2.2 criteria
  • VPAT 2.5 (508) - maps to Revised Section 508 standards
  • VPAT 2.5 (EN 301 549) - maps to EU accessibility directive
  • VPAT 2.5 (INT) - International edition (all three combined)

Remediation Tracking

When comparing against a baseline audit report:

StatusMeaning
FixedIssue was in previous report but is now resolved
NewIssue was not in previous report but appears now
PersistentIssue remains from previous report
RegressedIssue was previously fixed but has returned

Progress Metrics

  • Issue reduction percentage: (fixed / previous_total) * 100
  • Score change: current_score - previous_score
  • Documents improved: count of documents with higher scores

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

Check your setup, free