agentleFS
ravidsrkravidsrk/orca-fleet/skills/access-it/SKILL.md

access-it

Skill2 starsChanged 20 days agoMITView on GitHub

Drive a FROZEN page/flow/component set to WCAG 2.2 AA conformance (the engineering target that satisfies EAA / ADA / Section 508, which formally reference WCAG 2.1/2.0): a deterministic axe-core oracle clean on the surface plus a mandatory negative control (revert the fix, the violation returns), with the hard ~30-40% automation ceiling forcing screen-reader and cognitive criteria into a first-class human-AT park. The unit is one success-criterion violation instance on the frozen surface. Use when "accessibility", "a11y", "WCAG conformance", "screen reader", "keyboard-only operability", "ARIA", "axe-core", "Section 508 accessibility", "color contrast". Not for building a keyboard feature or shortcut (ship-it), a security exploit loop (harden-it), a PR merge verdict or a per-diff accessibility lens (review-it), a discovered backlog (clean-sweep), or standards attestation (attest-it).

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

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

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    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
  1. Distinctive:

    Every success criterion in the frozen (surface × WCAG 2.2 AA) denominator is accounted for: the deterministic oracle is clean across the …

    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

access-it — WCAG 2.2 conformance over a frozen surface

You are the COORDINATOR of an accessibility conformance run. "Make this surface WCAG 2.2 AA, or name what only a human can" is a user-facing outcome with a hard automation ceiling: the deterministic oracle proves what it can, and the ~30-40% it cannot (screen-reader semantics, cognitive load) is a first-class human-AT park, never a silent pass. The ceiling is measured, not guessed: Deque's automated-coverage report found axe-core-class tooling flags ~32% of WCAG 2.1 AA success criteria by count (~57% by issue volume) — the 30-40% figure is the by-criterion reading. Composes decide-and-freeze (FREEZE is the one-way gate), decompose-dag (enumerate violations into a DAG over the frozen surface), remediate-finding (fix each), browser-drive (DETECT and RE-VERIFY drive the surface through it), acceptance-review (build-blind review of each fix), compound-learn (retro); rides evidence-manifest (each fix carries the axe result + a revert-to-violation negative control), sandbox-policy (PROFILE=rw), merge-serialization, reviewed-sha-freshness, dispatch-lifecycle, liveness-resume, ledger-contract, attention-budget. Worker TASK pack: one of matt | addy | gstack — never co-mount.

DEFERRED READS, never at activation: human-handoff.md at PARK, and whenever a Design Mode capture is requested.

Terminal outcomes

  • CONFORMANT — near-unreachable: only when the frozen surface has NO success criteria past the ~30-40% automation ceiling (rare — most surfaces have screen-reader/cognitive criteria). The oracle is clean across the surface, every criterion is covered, and each fix's negative control holds.
  • CONFORMANT-WITH-MANUAL-PARKED (degraded) — the automatable criteria are clean, and the criteria past the automation ceiling (screen-reader / keyboard-trap / cognitive) are PARKED to a human + assistive-tech reviewer, each named with the criterion and why the oracle cannot decide it.

Pipeline

FREEZE (decide-and-freeze, ONE-WAY) the surface: the page/flow/component set × the WCAG 2.2 AA criteria — the
  denominator, digest-locked. The human confirms it; headless/spawned publishes the proposal and PARKS there.
  → BOOTSTRAP integration BASE (runtime/scripts/preflight.py --mission access-it --base <BASE> --fork-point <sha
    recorded in the ledger header at BASE creation>; BASE ≠ default — dispatch-lifecycle.md)
  → DETECT: run the deterministic oracle against the surface rendered at the BASE head (`oracle=`,
    frozen at T0: default `axe` — an automated rule engine; alternative `design-rules`, a catalog of
    the target's own component/contrast/target-size rules run as a deterministic pre-pass whose
    output feeds the same DAG); enumerate violations into a DAG.
  → FIX (rw workers, remediate-finding): each violation fixed at its instance; structural items
    (landmarks, heading order) serialized as they are global.
  → build-blind REVIEW (acceptance-review: semantics, not just the oracle — an aria-label stuffed to
    silence axe is a finding) → LAND (merge-serialization)
  → RE-VERIFY at the BASE head: the oracle goes clean on the frozen surface AND the mandatory negative
    control holds — revert the fix and the violation returns (evidence-manifest). A fix with no
    revert-to-red is not proven.
  → PARK: criteria past the automation ceiling routed to a human + assistive-tech reviewer, named.
  → VERDICT: CONFORMANT, or CONFORMANT-WITH-MANUAL-PARKED with the human-AT park register.

Design Mode captures are requestable evidence

A violation instance whose rendered context matters (contrast, target size, focus order) may cite a Design Mode capture as evidence: the human clicks the element in Orca's browser and it lands in chat with its DOM, computed styles, cropped screenshot, and source file/line (when a dev-mode source map is available). A capture is requested through human-handoff.md, arrives as DATA, and never substitutes for the oracle's re-scan or the revert control.

Convergence proof (definition of done)

Every success criterion in the frozen (surface × WCAG 2.2 AA) denominator is accounted for: the deterministic oracle is clean across the surface, each automatable criterion is covered with a fix whose negative control (revert → violation returns) holds, and each criterion past the automation ceiling is PARKED to a named human-AT reviewer with the reason the oracle cannot decide it. The verdict is CONFORMANT or CONFORMANT-WITH-MANUAL-PARKED; the denominator was never shrunk to only the automatable criteria, and no violation is silently dropped.

Ledger + supervision

Ledger header at T0 (ledger-contract.md) with WIP: builders=<n> reviewers=<n> sized to attention-budget.md (fix workers are a mutation wave: ≤3 builders, 1 reviewer per 3 builders, with at least 1 reviewer). Stalls → liveness-resume.md WATCH; death → RESUME, while compaction → write CONTEXT HANDOFF then RESUME (ledger-scoped, git-verified). Fixes land via merge-serialization with reviewed-sha-freshness.

Anti-patterns

Declaring CONFORMANT off a green axe run alone (the ~30-40% ceiling means the oracle's silence is not proof — the un-automatable criteria must be parked, not assumed passing). Shrinking the denominator to only what axe checks (the frozen surface × WCAG set is the denominator). A fix with no revert-to-violation negative control (a green oracle over reverted markup proves nothing). Confusing access-it with the per-diff accessibility lens in review-it, or with attest-it (a standard's obligation set, not a surface's rendered violations). Silencing the oracle (empty alt, aria-label stuffing, aria-hidden on real content, role soup): a clean axe over a worse experience — the build-blind review judges semantics, not the oracle's silence.

Related

review-it (a bounded per-diff a11y lens, not a surface sweep), attest-it (standard-obligation conformance, not rendered violations), clean-sweep (a discovered code backlog); sandbox-policy (rw fix workers), evidence-manifest (the revert-to-violation negative control each fix carries).

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.