review-a11y
Skill23 starsChanged 51 days agoMITView on GitHub
Internal accessibility review pass of the agentic-workflow review pack — composed in-turn by review-change and product-audit; not a menu entry. Checks the changed user-facing surface for accessibility: semantics, keyboard, focus, contrast, and ARIA correctness — applies only to user-facing surfaces. Findings only; never edits code.
2 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- stritar/skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 11, 2026
- SocialGouv/ultra11ytheir own version, first seen Aug 1, 2026
Other versions2 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 2
- SocialGouv/ultra11y★ 5same name
- stritar/skills★ 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 repository30 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- template/AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- audit-docsSkill
- audit-prSkill
- batch-schedulerSkill
- discover-repository-stateSkill
- execute-phaseSkill
- fold-findingsSkill
- init-workspaceSkill
- log-sessionSkill
- orchestration-envelopeSkill
- phase-contractSkill
- pre-execution-reviewSkill
- product-auditSkill
- resolve-repository-stateSkill
- review-brandSkill
- review-changeSkill
- review-codeSkill
- review-debtSkill
- review-designSkill
- review-implementationSkill
- review-perfSkill
- review-securitySkill
- review-seoSkill
- review-verifySkill
- skill-lintSkill
- triage-issueSkill
- unit-laneSkill
- verification-contractSkill
- workflow-statusSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
Distinctive · estimate
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
- Distinctive: line 42
Not findings: comment/punctuation typos, formatting-only drift, style preference with no cited rule, hypothetical robustness beyond the …
- Distinctive: line 71
Every checklist item was evaluated with evidence (file:line or command output) or explicitly marked n/a with the reason.
≈ “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.
Files
Review Accessibility (internal)
Composed by review-change / product-audit within their conversation — on any
agent, follow this file inline as the routed step. Findings only; never edits,
never refactors.
Scope
The diff or path/glob the caller passes; default the current change vs the default branch. State the scope at the top of the returned table.
Checklist (evaluate EVERY item — none is optional; n/a must be stated)
✓ Semantic elements over generic ones (button not clickable div; headings in order; landmarks present)
✓ Every input has an associated label; every image an alt (empty alt only when decorative)
✓ Full keyboard operability of the changed surface (tab order, Enter/Space activation, Escape to dismiss)
✓ Focus management on dynamic changes (modals trap + restore focus; route changes move focus)
✓ Contrast of changed text/UI meets the project's declared level (default WCAG AA) — cite computed values where checkable
✓ ARIA used correctly and only when semantics can't do it (wrong ARIA is a WARNING finding)
✓ No information conveyed by color alone
✓ Motion/animation respects reduced-motion preferences (n/a if no motion added)
✓ Error messages programmatically associated with their fields
Materiality bar
Report a row only when a competent user's outcome changes or a rule the project
explicitly declares is violated — cite the rule it violates beside the evidence.
Not findings: comment/punctuation typos, formatting-only drift, style preference
with no cited rule, hypothetical robustness beyond the SPEC's named scenarios.
An empty table with Decision: PASS is the expected result for a well-formed
change — never pad the table.
Return exactly
Sev and Impact are the two published closed sets (BLOCKER | CRITICAL |
WARNING | SUGGESTION and blocking | docs-only | report-only); their meanings
are owned by review-implementation (CLASSIFY.md §Severity ladder) — assign a
token, never a prose grade.
REVIEW ACCESSIBILITY — scope: <scope>
| # | Finding | Sev | Impact | Evidence | Suggested fix |
|---|---------|-----|--------|----------|---------------|
| 1 | <what> | BLOCKER|CRITICAL|WARNING|SUGGESTION | blocking|docs-only|report-only | <file:line> | <smallest action> |
Checklist: <n> evaluated, <n> pass, <n> findings, <n> n/a (<which + why>)
Summary: <1-2 sentences>
Decision: PASS | FAILFAIL if any BLOCKER, CRITICAL or WARNING finding is open; PASS otherwise.
SUGGESTION findings never block — they route to the caller's triage step.
Done when
- Every checklist item was evaluated with evidence (file:line or command output) or explicitly marked n/a with the reason.
- The fixed-format block above is returned — nothing more, nothing less — and no code was changed.
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
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.

