wcag-forms-and-error-prevention
Skill4 starsChanged 5 days agoMITView on GitHub
Fix WCAG 2.1/2.2 input purpose/autocomplete, form labels, visible error text, correction suggestions, safe submission confirmation and help. Use for accessible form building and error recovery.
In this repository55 other files it gives its agents.
- design-balance-and-proportionSkill
- design-brand-and-art-directionSkill
- design-buildSkill
- design-color-theorySkill
- design-diagnoseSkill
- design-hierarchy-and-emphasisSkill
- design-imagery-and-textureSkill
- design-layout-and-gridSkill
- design-movement-and-flowSkill
- design-reviewSkill
- design-rhythm-and-patternSkill
- design-typographySkill
- design-unity-and-systemsSkill
- design-validateSkill
- security-api-files-and-realtimeSkill
- security-authentication-and-sessionsSkill
- security-authorizationSkill
- security-browser-and-originSkill
- security-buildSkill
- security-configuration-and-secretsSkill
- security-crypto-and-dataSkill
- security-dependencies-and-buildSkill
- security-diagnoseSkill
- security-injection-and-validationSkill
- security-logging-and-failureSkill
- security-reviewSkill
- security-threat-model-and-designSkill
- security-validateSkill
- ux-accessibilitySkill
- ux-buildSkill
- ux-controls-and-inputsSkill
- ux-decisions-and-loadSkill
- ux-diagnoseSkill
- ux-feedback-and-performanceSkill
- ux-forms-and-errorsSkill
- ux-journeys-and-motivationSkill
- ux-navigation-and-structureSkill
- ux-onboarding-and-learningSkill
- ux-reviewSkill
- ux-trust-and-ethicsSkill
- ux-validateSkill
- ux-visual-hierarchySkill
- wcag-alternatives-and-mediaSkill
- wcag-assistive-tech-and-statusSkill
- wcag-buildSkill
- wcag-diagnoseSkill
- wcag-keyboard-and-focusSkill
- wcag-language-and-predictabilitySkill
- wcag-navigation-and-discoverySkill
- wcag-pointer-and-touchSkill
- wcag-reviewSkill
- wcag-semantics-and-reading-orderSkill
- wcag-time-and-motionSkill
- wcag-validateSkill
- wcag-visual-and-responsiveSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is 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.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 17
Use playbook differential diagnosis to choose the specific requirement, not a catch-all accessibility label.
- Distinctive: line 19
Verify with criterion-specific steps from the catalog and playbook, including manual/assistive-technology checks where required.
≈ “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
Forms, input help and error prevention
Scope
Trigger: Field purposes, instructions, identified errors, correction advice, review and reversal. Diagnosis question: Can users identify required inputs, repair errors and avoid irreversible submissions?
Base WCAG 2.1 criteria: 1.3.5, 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, 3.3.4, 3.3.5, 3.3.6. See the detailed operational guidance in references/playbook.md. For every targeted SC, read the matching entry in the selected ../wcag-diagnose/references/2.2/criteria.json or ../wcag-diagnose/references/2.1/criteria.json, including its normative link, applicability/exception warning and method. A standard's original text always prevails over these notes.
Procedure
- Reproduce observed barrier on actual page/component, state, input modality and user task. Distinguish a confirmed fail from suspected fail or non-applicable SC.
- Use playbook differential diagnosis to choose the specific requirement, not a catch-all accessibility label. Consult
../wcag-diagnose/references/cross_criterion_conflicts.jsonwhen several SCs appear related. - Implement the smallest robust remediation, preferring native semantics and accessible functionality over superficial ARIA or test suppression. Check normal, focused, disabled, loading and error states relevant to this feature.
- Verify with criterion-specific steps from the catalog and playbook, including manual/assistive-technology checks where required. Record evidence and browser/AT context; automated tool output alone is not WCAG conformance proof.
- For comprehensive review use
wcag-review; for implementation orchestration usewcag-build; for post-change assurance usewcag-validate.
Failure discipline
Submission safeguards have defined scopes at AA versus AAA. Never label an item as a failure under the selected WCAG version from visual appearance alone when behavioral evidence is required. Distinguish A/AA/AAA and applicability exceptions. Report exact user harm, criterion ID, practical repair and test. Do not assert legal compliance.
WCAG version selection (required)
Before classifying a normative failure, resolve standard + level according to ../wcag-diagnose/references/standard-selection.md. Precedence: explicit task/contract > consuming-project .frontend-a11y.json or unambiguous project policy > WCAG 2.2 AA. Record the chosen version and level. Read ../wcag-diagnose/references/standards.json and the versioned criterion catalog through wcag-diagnose (2.2: 2.2/criteria.json; 2.1: 2.1/criteria.json). Never apply 2.2-only criteria to 2.1; never test 4.1.1 Parsing in 2.2. WCAG 3.0 is an opt-in, dated Working Draft research lens only; its guidance is never an active 2.x conformance criterion. If project sources conflict, disclose and resolve before a conformance statement.
WCAG 2.2 additions: 3.3.7 A: avoid redundant entry by carrying values forward or making them selectable, with stated exceptions. 3.3.8 AA: authentication without unassisted cognitive tests, respecting explicit exceptions and security. 3.3.9 AAA is stricter: no object-recognition or personal-content exceptions.
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.