accessibility-review
- Repo stars 19,014
- Author updated Live
- Author repo knowledge-work-plugins
- Domain
- Security
- Compatible agents
-
- Claude Code
- Cursor
- Cline
- Codex
- Windsurf
- Gemini CLI
- +20
- Trust score
- 88 / 100 · community maintained
- Author / version / license
- @anthropics · no license declared
- Token usage
- Lean
- Setup complexity
- Plug-and-play
- External API key
- Not required
- Operating systems
- Unspecified (assume cross-platform)
- Runtime requirements
- No special requirements
- Permissions
-
- Read-only
- Write / modify
- Network behavior
- Local-only
- Install commands
- 26 variants
Profile is derived at build time from SKILL.md and install vectors. Subject to drift from author intent.
Heads up: 未限定 allowed-tools,默认拥有全部工具权限。
---
name: accessibility-review
description: Run a WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility audit on a design or page. Trigger with "audit accessibility", "…
category: security
runtime: no special runtime
---
# accessibility-review output preview
## PART A: Task fit
- Use case: Run a WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility audit on a design or page. Trigger with "audit accessibility", "check a11y", "is this accessible?", or when reviewing a design for color contrast, keyboard navigation, touch target size, or screen reader behavior before handoff..
- Inputs: target material, constraints, expected output, and acceptance criteria.
- Evidence boundary: follow “Usage / WCAG 2.1 AA Quick Reference / Perceivable” and do not present inference as author intent.
## PART B: Execution result
- **01** The card summarizes the use case; runtime output centers on “Run a WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility audit on a design or page. Trigger with "audit accessibility", "check a11y", "is this accessible?", or when reviewing a design for color contrast, keyboard navigation, touch target size, or screen reader behavior before handoff.”.
- **02** When the source has headings, the agent prioritizes “Usage / WCAG 2.1 AA Quick Reference / Perceivable” so the result follows the author’s structure.
- **03** Typical output includes task judgment, concrete steps, required commands or file edits, validation, and follow-up options.
- **04** Risk context follows the fingerprint: read files, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
## Running Rules
- read files, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding scope.
- Return the result, validation criteria, and next iteration options. The source mentions slash commands such as `/accessibility-review`; use them first when your agent supports command triggers.
Name target files or source material, expected output, forbidden changes, and whether network or shell access is allowed. Permission fingerprint: read files, write/modify files.
Start with a small task and check whether the result follows “Usage / WCAG 2.1 AA Quick Reference / Perceivable”. Inspect diffs, logs, previews, or tests before expanding scope.
Confirm the final output includes a concrete result, evidence, and next action. If it stays generic, tighten inputs, boundaries, and acceptance criteria.
---
name: accessibility-review
description: Run a WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility audit on a design or page. Trigger with "audit accessibility", "…
category: security
source: anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins
---
# accessibility-review
## When to use
- Run a WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility audit on a design or page. Trigger with "audit accessibility", "check a11y", "is this…
- Use it when the task has clear inputs, repeatable steps, and validation criteria.
## What to provide
- Target material, scope, expected result, and forbidden changes.
- Whether network, commands, file writes, or external services are allowed.
## Execution rules
- Organize steps around “Usage / WCAG 2.1 AA Quick Reference / Perceivable” and keep inference separate from source facts.
- read files, write/modify files; mostly runs locally; usually needs no extra API key.
- Validate with a small sample before expanding the task.
## Output requirements
- Return the deliverable, key evidence, validation method, and next action.
- Mark missing information as unknown; do not invent commands, platforms, or dependencies. The author source anchors workflow facts; repository files anchor sources and commands; Fluxly only adds fit, limitations, and quality judgment.
skill "accessibility-review" {
input -> user goal + target files + boundaries + acceptance criteria
context -> Usage / WCAG 2.1 AA Quick Reference / Perceivable
rules -> SKILL.md triggers / order / output contract
runtime -> no special runtime | read files, write/modify files | mostly runs locally
guardrails -> usually needs no extra API key + small-sample validation + diff/log review
output -> copyable result + checklist + next iteration
} /accessibility-review
If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see CONNECTORS.md.
Audit a design or page for WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility compliance.
Usage
/accessibility-review $ARGUMENTS
Audit for accessibility: @$1
WCAG 2.1 AA Quick Reference
Perceivable
- 1.1.1 Non-text content has alt text
- 1.3.1 Info and structure conveyed semantically
- 1.4.3 Contrast ratio >= 4.5:1 (normal text), >= 3:1 (large text)
- 1.4.11 Non-text contrast >= 3:1 (UI components, graphics)
Operable
- 2.1.1 All functionality available via keyboard
- 2.4.3 Logical focus order
- 2.4.7 Visible focus indicator
- 2.5.5 Touch target >= 44x44 CSS pixels
Understandable
- 3.2.1 Predictable on focus (no unexpected changes)
- 3.3.1 Error identification (describe the error)
- 3.3.2 Labels or instructions for inputs
Robust
- 4.1.2 Name, role, value for all UI components
Common Issues
- Insufficient color contrast
- Missing form labels
- No keyboard access to interactive elements
- Missing alt text on meaningful images
- Focus traps in modals
- Missing ARIA landmarks
- Auto-playing media without controls
- Time limits without extension options
Testing Approach
- Automated scan (catches ~30% of issues)
- Keyboard-only navigation
- Screen reader testing (VoiceOver, NVDA)
- Color contrast verification
- Zoom to 200% — does layout break?
Output
## Accessibility Audit: [Design/Page Name]
**Standard:** WCAG 2.1 AA | **Date:** [Date]
### Summary
**Issues found:** [X] | **Critical:** [X] | **Major:** [X] | **Minor:** [X]
### Findings
#### Perceivable
| # | Issue | WCAG Criterion | Severity | Recommendation |
|---|-------|---------------|----------|----------------|
| 1 | [Issue] | [1.4.3 Contrast] | 🔴 Critical | [Fix] |
#### Operable
| # | Issue | WCAG Criterion | Severity | Recommendation |
|---|-------|---------------|----------|----------------|
| 1 | [Issue] | [2.1.1 Keyboard] | 🟡 Major | [Fix] |
#### Understandable
| # | Issue | WCAG Criterion | Severity | Recommendation |
|---|-------|---------------|----------|----------------|
| 1 | [Issue] | [3.3.2 Labels] | 🟢 Minor | [Fix] |
#### Robust
| # | Issue | WCAG Criterion | Severity | Recommendation |
|---|-------|---------------|----------|----------------|
| 1 | [Issue] | [4.1.2 Name, Role, Value] | 🟡 Major | [Fix] |
### Color Contrast Check
| Element | Foreground | Background | Ratio | Required | Pass? |
|---------|-----------|------------|-------|----------|-------|
| [Body text] | [color] | [color] | [X]:1 | 4.5:1 | ✅/❌ |
### Keyboard Navigation
| Element | Tab Order | Enter/Space | Escape | Arrow Keys |
|---------|-----------|-------------|--------|------------|
| [Element] | [Order] | [Behavior] | [Behavior] | [Behavior] |
### Screen Reader
| Element | Announced As | Issue |
|---------|-------------|-------|
| [Element] | [What SR says] | [Problem if any] |
### Priority Fixes
1. **[Critical fix]** — Affects [who] and blocks [what]
2. **[Major fix]** — Improves [what] for [who]
3. **[Minor fix]** — Nice to have
If Connectors Available
If ~~design tool is connected:
- Inspect color values, font sizes, and touch targets directly from Figma
- Check component ARIA roles and keyboard behavior in the design spec
If ~~project tracker is connected:
- Create tickets for each accessibility finding with severity and WCAG criterion
- Link findings to existing accessibility remediation epics
Tips
- Start with contrast and keyboard — These catch the most common and impactful issues.
- Test with real assistive technology — My audit is a great start, but manual testing with VoiceOver/NVDA catches things I can't.
- Prioritize by impact — Fix issues that block users first, polish later.
Decide Fit First
Design Intent
How To Use It
Boundaries And Review