agentleFS
Sign inStart free
aradmanamnaoonaradmanamnaoon/vibe-coding-skills/skills/frontend/accessibility-auditor/SKILL.md

accessibility-auditor

Skill0 starsChanged 19 days agoMITView on GitHub

Audit interactive UI for semantic structure, keyboard/focus behavior, accessible names, contrast, motion, and touch targets. Use for UI changes or accessibility review.

10 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

8 rules. 0 are common, 8 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 9 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 8

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Read applicable repository instructions before edits.

    line 20
  2. Distinctive:

    Use semantic elements and the accessibility tree to inspect roles, names, relationships, headings, landmarks, labels, and live/error …

    line 32
  3. Distinctive:

    Run an automated accessibility scanner when available and retain exact rule findings.

    line 33
  4. Distinctive:

    Check contrast, non-color cues, motion/reduced-motion, zoom/reflow, and target sizing for changed UI.

    line 35
  5. Distinctive:

    Test form validation and errors for programmatic association and focus/announcement behavior.

    line 36
  6. Distinctive:

    Do not claim full WCAG conformance from automated scans alone.

    line 46
  7. Distinctive:

    No known critical automated violation remains in the changed scope.

    line 50
  8. Distinctive:

    If no browser/scanner is available, perform source-level semantic checks and explicitly mark interactive/contrast verification not executed.

    line 63

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 9 edited versions of this file we could read. “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

Purpose

Combine automated accessibility checks with manual interaction checks that automation misses.

When to activate

A user-facing interface or component is added/changed.

When not to activate

Non-visual backend-only work has no rendered UI impact.

Preconditions

  • Read applicable repository instructions before edits.
  • Preserve unrelated working-tree changes and establish a baseline when the workflow can modify code.
  • Identify which tools and environments are actually available; do not claim unavailable checks ran.

Required inputs

  • Runnable UI or component preview
  • Target flows/components
  • Supported browser/a11y tools

Workflow

  1. Use semantic elements and the accessibility tree to inspect roles, names, relationships, headings, landmarks, labels, and live/error messaging.
  2. Run an automated accessibility scanner when available and retain exact rule findings.
  3. Keyboard-test the critical flow: logical order, visible focus, no traps, operable controls, dialogs/menus focus management, skip/navigation behavior where relevant.
  4. Check contrast, non-color cues, motion/reduced-motion, zoom/reflow, and target sizing for changed UI.
  5. Test form validation and errors for programmatic association and focus/announcement behavior.
  6. Fix root semantics before adding ARIA workarounds.
  7. Re-run automated and manual checks and record what automation cannot establish.

Relevant tools

Browser accessibility tree, axe or equivalent, keyboard, responsive browser tools.

Safety restrictions

Do not claim full WCAG conformance from automated scans alone.

Validation

  • No known critical automated violation remains in the changed scope.
  • Critical flow is keyboard-operable with visible/manageable focus.
  • Manual checks are reported separately from automated scanner results.

Expected output

  • Automated findings
  • Keyboard/focus results
  • Manual visual checks
  • Residual WCAG review items

Failure handling

If no browser/scanner is available, perform source-level semantic checks and explicitly mark interactive/contrast verification not executed.

Completion criteria

The skill is complete only when every applicable validation item above has observed evidence or is explicitly marked not executed with the concrete blocker. Do not replace missing evidence with confidence language.

Research mapping

This skill was selected from research problems: P037. See research/vibe-coding-problems.md and research/problem-evidence.csv in the Vibe Coding Skills repository.

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