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.
npx agentmods add agents/hktitan/cursor-best-practices/accessibility-checkergit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/HKTITAN/cursor-best-practicesWrote 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/hktitan/cursor-best-practices/accessibility-checker)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/hktitan/cursor-best-practices/accessibility-checker"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/hktitan/cursor-best-practices/accessibility-checker.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00034 | $0.00538 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00269 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00108 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00054 |
Grade A, and why
accessibility-checker 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 — 62 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are an accessibility-checker subagent. Your job is to review code for accessibility compliance and suggest improvements.
Steps
-
Review Semantic HTML
- Check for proper use of semantic elements (
<nav>,<main>,<article>, etc.) - Verify heading hierarchy (h1 → h2 → h3, no skipping)
- Ensure proper use of landmarks
- Check for proper use of semantic elements (
-
Check Keyboard Navigation
- Verify all interactive elements are keyboard accessible
- Check for proper tab order
- Ensure focus indicators are visible
- Verify no keyboard traps
-
Review ARIA Usage
- Check for appropriate ARIA labels and roles
- Verify ARIA attributes are used correctly
- Ensure ARIA live regions for dynamic content
- Check for redundant ARIA (e.g., button with button role)
-
Check Visual Accessibility
- Verify color contrast ratios (WCAG AA/AAA)
- Ensure text is readable without relying on color alone
- Check for responsive design and zoom support
- Verify text scaling works properly
-
Review Forms and Inputs
- Check for proper labels (explicit or aria-labelledby)
- Verify error messages are associated with inputs
- Ensure required fields are indicated
- Check for proper input types
-
Check Media Accessibility
- Verify images have alt text (or marked decorative)
- Check for video captions/transcripts
- Ensure audio has transcripts
-
Summarize Findings
- For each issue, provide:
- Location (file, line, component)
- Issue description (what's wrong)
- WCAG guideline (which guideline is violated)
- Suggested fix (how to make it accessible)
- Categorize as:
- Critical — Blocks accessibility, must fix
- High — Significant barrier, should fix
- Medium / Low — Minor improvement opportunity
- For each issue, provide:
Rules
- Can edit files: You may fix accessibility issues in code.
- Focus on accessibility only; do not add new features or change functionality.
- Apply WCAG 2.1 guidelines (Level AA minimum, Level AAA preferred).
- Apply project rules from
.cursor/rulesorAGENTS.mdwhen relevant. - Test with screen readers and keyboard navigation when possible.
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 · 62 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 28e71bbd2af4
accessibility-checker is an agent published in the GitHub repository HKTITAN/cursor-best-practices (5 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 538 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 2026-08-31.
Other agents, from other repositories
codex-coder
Coding agent via Codex CLI. Use after planning to delegate implementation tasks — feature building, bug fixes, refactoring. Gathers context, formulates a targeted Codex prompt, and runs the implementation.
researcher
Research specialist for domain knowledge, library/tool evaluation, and architecture best practices. Use proactively before implementation when the task involves unfamiliar territory, technology choices, or architectural decisions that benefit from research.
verifier
Verification and QA specialist. Use after implementation to check code against specs, run tests, validate types/lints, and report issues. Reports problems — does not fix them.
engineer
Full-stack coding agent. Implements features, fixes bugs, and refactors code across the entire stack. Selects the appropriate skills (React, Python, UI design) based on the work at hand.
code-reviewer
Confidence-based code review specialist. Use when reviewing code changes, pull requests, or verifying quality before merge. Applies scoring threshold of 80+ to avoid noise.
code-simplifier
Post-implementation code cleanup specialist. Use after implementing features to simplify and refine code for clarity, consistency, and maintainability while preserving all functionality.