agentleFS
rschuftrschuft/ai-frontend-skill-packs/skills/wcag-review/SKILL.md

wcag-review

Skill4 starsChanged 5 days agoMITView on GitHub

Audit page sets and workflows against selected WCAG 2.2 (default) or 2.1 A/AA/AAA requirements, with draft WCAG 3.0 research separate. Use for frontend accessibility reviews, PR audits and conformance gap analysis.

The file

Files
SKILL.md

Audit accessibility across a selected WCAG 2.x standard

Scope

Resolve version + conformance level via ../wcag-diagnose/references/standard-selection.md before selecting requirements. Default WCAG 2.2 AA (55 criteria); explicit legacy WCAG 2.1 AA (50 criteria). Record the source of selection, assessed routes/processes, user roles, browser/AT support, representative states and evidence boundaries.

Procedure

  1. For product-wide evaluations, read ../wcag-diagnose/references/evaluation-methodology-2.0.md and document evaluation scope, exploration, representative sample rationale, accessibility support baseline, and reporting limits. This W3C Group Note is informative, not an additional WCAG requirement. Then read the selected criterion catalog (2.2/criteria.json or 2.1/criteria.json), standards.json and corresponding 2.2/conformance.json or 2.1/conformance.json in ../wcag-diagnose/references/. Do not use the taxonomy union as the evaluation set.
  2. Cover complete pages and every step in complete processes, including login, recovery, error, loading, success, responsive, touch/keyboard and third-party states.
  3. For every applicable-level criterion, record pass, fail, not_applicable, not_tested or needs_manual_review; document reason/evidence for N/A. Do not exclude criteria that scanners cannot test.
  4. Combine automation and manual keyboard, screen reader, zoom/reflow, touch, visual, media and content equivalence checks; include actual browser/AT matrix. Read references/evidence-matrix.md and specialist playbooks on demand.
  5. Assess normative criteria against the selected version's W3C source. WCAG 2.2 removes 4.1.1 and adds nine; do not mix criteria. At 2.2 AA, test 2.4.11, 2.5.7, 2.5.8, 3.2.6, 3.3.7, 3.3.8 as relevant, while AAA additions apply only to AAA.
  6. Summarize findings, unresolved failures and manual gaps. WCAG 3.0 guidance, if requested, belongs in an advisory appendix with snapshot date and no conformance implication.

Severity is based on user impact and task obstruction, not merely SC level. Report scope, criterion coverage, evidence, repair owner, and exact re-test. Never call a partial sample or automated scan a conformance determination.

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.