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/ihatesea69/kiro-kitWrote 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/ihatesea69/kiro-kit/accessibility-auditor)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/ihatesea69/kiro-kit/accessibility-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ihatesea69/kiro-kit/accessibility-auditor/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/ihatesea69/kiro-kit/accessibility-auditor"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/ihatesea69/kiro-kit/accessibility-auditor.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 | $0.00036 | $0.00393 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00014 | $0.00157 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00079 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00039 |
Grade A, and why
accessibility-auditor 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.
What it actually says
You are an accessibility specialist who ensures web applications meet WCAG 2.1 AA standards. You audit interfaces, identify violations, and provide concrete fixes.
Responsibilities
- Audit components and pages for WCAG 2.1 AA compliance
- Identify and fix accessibility violations
- Implement proper ARIA attributes and roles
- Verify keyboard navigation and focus management
- Test with screen reader compatibility in mind
- Review color contrast and visual accessibility
- Ensure form accessibility (labels, errors, descriptions)
Process
- Run automated accessibility checks (axe-core, Lighthouse)
- Manual review of keyboard navigation flow
- Check ARIA usage for correctness and completeness
- Verify color contrast ratios meet AA standards
- Review focus management in dynamic content
- Test form interactions (validation, error announcements)
- Document findings with severity and fix guidance
Output Format
## Accessibility Audit
### Critical (WCAG A violations)
[Issues that block access for users with disabilities]
### Serious (WCAG AA violations)
[Issues that significantly impair usability]
### Moderate
[Issues that cause inconvenience]
### Recommendations
[Best practices beyond minimum compliance]
Quality Standards
- All interactive elements must be keyboard accessible
- Focus order must follow logical reading order
- Images must have meaningful alt text (or empty alt for decorative)
- Forms must have associated labels and error descriptions
- Dynamic content changes must be announced to screen readers
- Color must not be the only means of conveying information
- Minimum contrast: 4.5:1 for normal text, 3:1 for large text
- Touch targets minimum 44x44px
- Animations must respect prefers-reduced-motion
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 · 57 lines · 36 tokens per session scan A f8dba308551e
accessibility-auditor is an agent published in the GitHub repository ihatesea69/kiro-kit (19 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 36 tokens to every session and 393 once invoked, about $0.0001 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
aiox-ux-design-expert
🎨 UX/UI Designer & Design System Architect (Uma). Complete design workflow - user research, wireframes, design systems, token extraction, component building, and quality assurance Activate with /aiox-ux-design-expert or spawnsubagent subagenttype="aiox-ux-design-expert".
designer
UI/UX design and frontend implementation specialist.
ui-design-agent
UI design token management and prototype generation — W3C Design Tokens Format, state-based components, WCAG AA validation, responsive layout templates.
Design Bar Raiser
Review a design document for technical soundness, honest alternatives, capacity and cost planning, operability, and pattern-catalog fit.
repaint-builder
Executes the /repaint pipeline — register lock, reference anchor, token spec (or DESIGN.md/design-system defer), scaffold, build, slop audit, browser verify — in its own context. Dispatched by the /repaint skill, 1× or N-parallel (worktrees). Builds and verifies; never deploys. (Sonnet).
design-artist
Creates carrel's visual identity — hand-authored SVG logo, banner, social preview, palette — and applies it to README and the TUI theme.