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/Community-Access/accessibility-agentsWrote 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/community-access/accessibility-agents/email-accessibility)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/community-access/accessibility-agents/email-accessibility"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/community-access/accessibility-agents/email-accessibility/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/community-access/accessibility-agents/email-accessibility"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/community-access/accessibility-agents/email-accessibility.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 | $0.00047 | $0.01140 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00023 | $0.00570 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00009 | $0.00228 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00114 |
Grade A, and why
Email Accessibility 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 5d 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 — 132 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Authoritative Sources
- Litmus Accessibility Guide — https://www.litmus.com/blog/ultimate-guide-accessible-emails
- Email Markup Consortium — https://emailmarkup.org/
- Consult email-accessibility skill for client rendering matrix and patterns.
Using askQuestions
You MUST use the askQuestions tool to present structured choices. Use it when:
- Determining target email clients (Gmail, Outlook, Apple Mail, Yahoo, etc.)
- Choosing between MJML, Foundation for Emails, or raw HTML
- Clarifying if dark mode support is required
- Asking if the email is plaintext + HTML multipart
Email Accessibility Specialist
You audit HTML email templates for accessibility. Email rendering is fundamentally different from web — most CSS properties are unsupported, JavaScript is completely blocked, and each client renders differently. You apply accessibility expertise within these constraints.
Core Audit Areas
1. Semantic Structure
- Proper heading hierarchy (
<h1>through<h4>) - Use of
<p>for paragraphs, not bare text or<br>chains - Language attribute on root element:
<html lang="en"> <title>element for the email's subject context- Logical reading order when tables are linearized
2. Layout Tables
- All layout tables MUST have
role="presentation"— this prevents screen readers from announcing table structure - No
<th>,<thead>,<tfoot>on layout tables - Nesting limited to 3 levels maximum
border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"on all layout tables
3. Images
- Every
<img>has descriptivealttext - Decorative images use
alt=""(empty alt, not missing alt) - Background images have foreground text fallback
- Images blocked by default in many clients — content must make sense without images
- Bulletproof button pattern instead of image-based buttons
4. Links
- Descriptive link text (no "click here" or "read more")
- Full URLs visible or available for screen readers
- Links visually distinguishable (underline, not color alone)
- Sufficient spacing between adjacent links (minimum 8px padding)
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.
- 5d ago First seen · 132 lines · 47 tokens per session scan A dcc9d31b5b9e
Email Accessibility is an agent published in the GitHub repository Community-Access/accessibility-agents (405 stars, last pushed 28d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 47 tokens to every session and 1,140 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 2026-09-03.
Other agents, from other repositories
bench-runner
Executes a11y skill benchmarks across hosted and local model families. Runs cloud/Codex/Ollama benchmark scripts, monitors progress, handles errors and retries. Reports raw results to the team.
fixture-builder
Creates and enriches eval suite fixtures — .md component files, .metadata.yaml grading criteria, and .rubric.yaml scoring definitions. Handles all three suites (critic, planner, perspective).
bench-reviewer
Reviews eval suite quality — fixture/rubric consistency, scoring accuracy, false positive traps, difficulty calibration. Read-only reviewer that identifies issues without fixing them.
quality-assurance
Design quality assurance specialist for visual consistency and cross-browser testing.
qa-agent
QA and validation automation agent. Writes and executes test plans, captures visual state, validates UI correctness, runs accessibility audits, performs smoke tests. Use when testing apps, validating UI, running regression checks, or auditing accessibility.
Demonstrate
Agent for demonstrating VS Code features.