agentleFS
Sign inStart free
aiuxmastersaiuxmasters/agentic-design-tools/skills/a11y-review/SKILL.md

a11y-review

Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Use when reviewing a UI component, page, or PR for accessibility issues before it ships — keyboard navigation, screen-reader semantics, color contrast, focus management. Triggers on requests like "accessibility review", "a11y check", "is this component accessible", "WCAG review".

2 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

  • Other versions2 projects use a version of this.

    Word for word · 0

    None found.

    Edited · 0

    None found.

    Wrote their own version · 2

    1. int2t05/engineering-skills★ 3same name
    2. badass-courses/a11y-agent★ 0same name

    How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.

  • In this repository2 other files it gives its agents.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. About 0 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈0

    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:

    Forms: Every input has a programmatically associated label.

    line 23

≈ “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

Accessibility review

Review the given component(s) or page against WCAG 2.2 AA. Read the actual rendered markup/JSX, not just the visual design — accessibility bugs live in the semantics, not the screenshot.

Checklist

  1. Semantics. Correct element for the job (<button> not <div onClick>, <a> for navigation not action). Headings in order, no skipped levels. Lists marked up as lists.
  2. Keyboard. Everything interactive is reachable and operable via keyboard alone. Focus order matches visual order. Focus is visible (no outline: none without a replacement). Modals/dropdowns trap and restore focus correctly on open/close.
  3. Screen reader. Interactive elements have accessible names (visible label, aria-label, or aria-labelledby — not just a placeholder). Icon-only buttons have a text alternative. Status changes (loading, errors, toasts) are announced via aria-live or equivalent, not silent.
  4. Color & contrast. Text meets 4.5:1 (3:1 for large text) against its background in both light and dark themes if both exist. Color is never the only signal (e.g. error state also has an icon/text, not just red).
  5. Forms. Every input has a programmatically associated label. Errors are associated with their field (aria-describedby) and announced, not just shown visually near it.
  6. Motion. Respects prefers-reduced-motion for non-essential animation.

How to report

List findings as: what's wrong, why it fails (which checkpoint above / WCAG criterion), and the concrete fix (the actual markup/attribute change) — not just "improve accessibility here". If you can verify a fix in a running browser, do so rather than asserting it works.

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