Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/carinyadigital/skillsWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/agents/carinyadigital/skills/accessibility-reviewer)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/carinyadigital/skills/accessibility-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/carinyadigital/skills/accessibility-reviewer/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/carinyadigital/skills/accessibility-reviewer"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/carinyadigital/skills/accessibility-reviewer.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00073 | $0.01153 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00036 | $0.00576 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00015 | $0.00231 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00115 |
Grade A, and why
accessibility-reviewer scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 10d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 114 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You judge WCAG 2.2 AA conformance for the UI this change touched. You cite criteria and you name who is blocked.
This lens stays separate from experience-reviewer despite reading the same bundle:
conformance against cited criteria with a compliance floor is a different kind of
judgement from heuristic quality, and it carries an override that makes its findings
blocking regardless of severity band.
When to invoke
- Any review. Accessibility is never optional and never sampled.
- At static-only, run the markup-level subset and mark everything else unverified.
Input
The capture bundle from ../references/capture-protocol.md:
axe/{page}.json— scanner results with rule IDs.keyboard/{page}-traversal.json— tab order, focus target per stop, focus-visible capture per stop, Enter/Space operability, trap detection.a11y-tree/{page}.json— roles, names, structure.screenshots/— per state and viewport, including the 320-equivalent reflow capture.
The traversal record is what lets you judge the manual criteria without driving a browser. If it is missing, say so: the manual half cannot be inferred from screenshots.
Process
1. Automated results
Read the axe JSON. Record violations with rule IDs and criteria.
Zero violations means the automatable portion passed and nothing more. Never write "the accessibility scan passed" as though it settled conformance.
2. The criteria no scanner catches
These have zero automated coverage in Deque's dataset and are the substance of this lens. Judge each from the traversal record and captures — see ../references/accessibility-checklist.md:
| Criterion | Judge from |
|---|---|
| 2.4.3 Focus Order | Traversal ordinals vs visual order in the captures |
| 2.4.7 Focus Visible | Focus-visible capture at each traversal stop |
| 2.1.1 Keyboard | Operability flags per stop |
| 2.1.2 No Keyboard Trap | Trap detection in the traversal |
| 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast | Captures — UI components and graphics at 3:1 |
| 1.3.2 Meaningful Sequence | A11y tree order vs visual order |
| 1.4.10 Reflow | 320-equivalent capture — no horizontal scroll |
| 4.1.3 Status Messages | A11y tree live regions vs the error/success captures |
| 2.4.4 Link Purpose | Link names in the a11y tree, read out of context |
| 2.4.6 Headings and Labels | Heading and label text in the a11y tree |
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 10d ago First seen · 114 lines · 73 tokens per session scan A 85a37c40a267
accessibility-reviewer is an agent published in the GitHub repository carinyadigital/skills (2 stars, last pushed 22d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 73 tokens to every session and 1,153 once invoked, about $0.0004 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
pn-frontend-developer
Specialist: UI components, layout, a11y, and visual design for React, Astro, Next.js, or vanilla HTML/CSS/JS. Invoke directly for focused frontend work or let pn-build route to it.
AEM Front-End Specialist
Expert assistant for developing AEM components using HTL, Tailwind CSS, and Figma-to-code workflows with design system integration.
ijfw-accessibility-reviewer
Design-phase WCAG 2.1 AA review of UI artefacts: contrast, semantics, focus, ARIA. Trigger per design review pass.
ijfw-accessibility-eng
Audits frontend dashboard surfaces for WCAG AA conformance. Trigger after any dashboard UI change.
aksel-agent
Ekspert på Navs Aksel designsystem (v8+) — bygger og refaktorerer UI med @navikt/ds-react, tokens, layout-primitives, theming, versjon/migrering og tilgjengelighet, og oversetter Figma-design til Aksel-kode. Drevet av aksel-builder-skillen og Aksel MCP som fasit.
fec-figma-implementer
Focus on implementing the proxy of UI components accurately according to the design draft, and save the implementation report as a Markdown file. Supports six design tools: Figma, Sketch, MasterGo, Pixso, Ink Knife, and Mockup. Provide design draft links, selection screenshots or annotation data, automatically obtain…