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.
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-language-and-predictabilitySkill
- wcag-navigation-and-discoverySkill
- wcag-pointer-and-touchSkill
- wcag-semantics-and-reading-orderSkill
- wcag-time-and-motionSkill
- wcag-validateSkill
- wcag-visual-and-responsiveSkill
The file
Files
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
- For product-wide evaluations, read
../wcag-diagnose/references/evaluation-methodology-2.0.mdand 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.jsonor2.1/criteria.json),standards.jsonand corresponding2.2/conformance.jsonor2.1/conformance.jsonin../wcag-diagnose/references/. Do not use the taxonomy union as the evaluation set. - Cover complete pages and every step in complete processes, including login, recovery, error, loading, success, responsive, touch/keyboard and third-party states.
- For every applicable-level criterion, record
pass,fail,not_applicable,not_testedorneeds_manual_review; document reason/evidence for N/A. Do not exclude criteria that scanners cannot test. - 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.mdand specialist playbooks on demand. - 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.
- 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.
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.

