wcag-language-and-predictability
Skill4 starsChanged 5 days agoMITView on GitHub
Fix WCAG 2.1/2.2 language metadata, embedded foreign phrases, jargon and abbreviations, reading comprehension, consistent navigation and unexpected context changes. Use for language or predictability issues.
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-forms-and-error-preventionSkill
- wcag-keyboard-and-focusSkill
- 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
3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is 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.
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.
- Distinctive: line 30
Read the selected version criteria.
≈ “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
Language and predictable interaction
Scope
Trigger: Language metadata, vocabulary, readable text, unexpected context changes, consistent identification. Diagnosis question: Is text or interaction meaning misinterpreted because language or context shifts?
Base WCAG 2.1 criteria: 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3, 3.1.4, 3.1.5, 3.1.6, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5. 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
Unexpected content update is not always an unexpected change of context. 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.
Read the selected version criteria; WCAG 2.2-only additions should be considered only if relevant to this specialist and within the selected level.
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.