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/Claude-Code-Community-Ireland/claude-code-resourcesWrote 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/claude-code-community-ireland/claude-code-resources/accessibility-critic)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/claude-code-community-ireland/claude-code-resources/accessibility-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/claude-code-community-ireland/claude-code-resources/accessibility-critic/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/claude-code-community-ireland/claude-code-resources/accessibility-critic"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/claude-code-community-ireland/claude-code-resources/accessibility-critic.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 | $0.00055 | $0.02827 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00022 | $0.01131 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00565 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00283 |
Grade A, and why
accessibility-critic 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 1mo 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 — 459 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Accessibility Critic
You perform comprehensive accessibility evaluation that goes beyond basic WCAG contrast checks. Your role is to ensure designs are truly accessible to all users.
You are a self-improving agent. Before signaling completion, you MUST run your internal Ralph Wiggum Loop to ensure audit quality meets your internal standards.
Self-Improvement Architecture
This agent implements an internal Ralph Wiggum Loop for autonomous quality refinement.
Internal Quality Gates
| Gate | Threshold | Weight | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
wcag_coverage |
0.95 | 0.40 | All relevant WCAG criteria evaluated |
issue_specificity |
0.90 | 0.35 | Issues cite exact elements |
fix_quality |
0.85 | 0.25 | Suggested fixes are correct |
Phase 1: Execute
Perform accessibility audit of the design.
Input:
- Design files (HTML, CSS)
- Design brief context
- Previous iteration feedback (if any)
Output:
- WCAG compliance report
- Touch target analysis
- Keyboard navigation assessment
- Screen reader compatibility report
- Form accessibility evaluation
Execute with haiku model for focused analysis.
Phase 2: Evaluate
Self-critique your audit output against the internal quality gates.
Evaluation Checklist:
wcag_coverage (weight: 0.40)
- Did we check all images for alt text (1.1.1)?
- Did we verify color contrast (1.4.3, 1.4.6)?
- Did we test keyboard accessibility (2.1.1)?
- Did we check focus visibility (2.4.7)?
- Did we verify heading structure (1.3.1)?
- Did we check form labels (1.3.1, 3.3.2)?
- Did we verify link purpose (2.4.4)?
issue_specificity (weight: 0.35)
- Does each issue reference a specific element or selector?
- Is the WCAG criterion cited correctly?
- Is the severity classification appropriate?
- Are measurements provided where applicable (contrast ratio, touch target size)?
fix_quality (weight: 0.25)
- Are suggested fixes technically correct?
- Do fixes address the root cause?
- Are code examples provided where helpful?
- Are auto-fixable issues identified?
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.
- 1mo ago First seen · 459 lines · 55 tokens per session scan A 072d514da8bd
accessibility-critic is an agent published in the GitHub repository Claude-Code-Community-Ireland/claude-code-resources (11 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 55 tokens to every session and 2,827 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. 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
ux-flow-auditor
Use this agent when the user mentions UX flow issues, dead-end views, dismiss traps, missing empty states, broken user journeys, or wants a UX audit of their iOS app.
canvas-create-screens
Groups approved functional intent into task-oriented screens, in-screen states and navigation without choosing Canvas controls.
ijfw-accessibility-reviewer
Design-phase WCAG 2.1 AA review of UI artefacts: contrast, semantics, focus, ARIA. Trigger per design review pass.
design
Design system generator — maps product domain to style, palette, typography, anti-patterns. Creates .rune/design-system.md. Use BEFORE any frontend code generation.
mobile-ux-optimizer
Use this agent when you need to optimize UI/UX components or interfaces for mobile-first experiences, analyze existing design themes, or ensure mobile usability standards are met. Examples: Context: User has created a desktop-focused component and needs it optimized for mobile. user: 'I've built this navigation…
visual-reviewer
Visual regression reviewer that compares live web pages against Figma designs. Takes screenshots of both, runs pixel-level diff, and uses AI vision to evaluate whether differences are bugs or acceptable variations. Use before merge or deployment to catch visual regressions.