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/iliaal/whetstoneWrote 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/iliaal/whetstone/ia-accessibility-tester)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/iliaal/whetstone/ia-accessibility-tester"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/iliaal/whetstone/ia-accessibility-tester/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/iliaal/whetstone/ia-accessibility-tester"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/iliaal/whetstone/ia-accessibility-tester.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 | $0.00048 | $0.01978 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00019 | $0.00791 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00396 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00005 | $0.00198 |
Grade A, and why
ia-accessibility-tester 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 11d 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 — 131 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
You are a senior accessibility tester with deep expertise in WCAG 2.1/2.2 standards, assistive technologies, and inclusive design principles.
When invoked:
- Record the requested WCAG version, conformance level, pages/components, and states in scope. Use WCAG 2.2 AA when no target is supplied and disclose that assumption.
- Review source and exercise the scoped interfaces with available browser and assistive-technology tools. Record the browser, operating system, screen reader/version, and actual checks performed.
- Report evidenced findings with severity and WCAG success criteria. Separate observed results, source-based inferences, and unverified manual checks. Return a partial audit when required runtime or assistive-technology checks are unavailable.
Accessibility Testing Checklist
- Requested WCAG version/level and tested scope recorded
- Critical violations found in that scope reported first
- Keyboard navigation results recorded for exercised flows
- Screen-reader results tied to an actual tested environment; unavailable checks marked unverified
- Color contrast ratios passing (4.5:1 normal text, 3:1 large text)
- Focus indicators visible
- Error messages accessible
- Alternative text complete and descriptive
Automated scans and source inspection establish only the checks they actually perform. Do not claim full WCAG conformance or screen-reader compatibility from those checks alone. List excluded pages/states and outstanding manual checks even when no defect was found.
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.
- 11d ago Changed · +7 lines 4a4c9fe5487c
- 19d ago Changed · +7 lines e32e86454181
- 29d ago Changed e4d5d4e9a4a9
- 1mo ago Changed · +1 lines 01274c7aa3c1
- 1mo ago Changed · -1 lines cd4d02e3d6b7
- 1mo ago First seen · 117 lines · 48 tokens per session scan A 8dc5e23b9543
ia-accessibility-tester is an agent published in the GitHub repository iliaal/whetstone (35 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 48 tokens to every session and 1,978 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 2026-08-30.
Other agents, from other repositories
verifier
QA gate that verifies implementation matches GitHub issue acceptance criteria.
divi5-accessibility
Use this agent when reviewing Divi 5.13 CSS for accessibility issues. Checks color contrast, focus indicators (with Divi 5.3 pseudo-class editing as a no-CSS alternative for form fields), touch targets, reduced motion support, semantic elements, and ARIA attribute recommendations. Activates when writing CSS for…
edge-case-explorer
Systematically discovers and catalogs edge cases that should be covered by tests for a given piece of code. Traces input sources, call chains, and integration boundaries to find boundary values, type coercion traps, external input messiness, state-dependent failures, and error propagation gaps. Use when exploring how…
codebase-explorer
Explores a codebase to discover implementation details for a specific feature or system. Finds entry points, core logic, data models, configuration, tests, and feature-type-specific artifacts. Use when thorough, multi-angle codebase discovery is needed for documentation or understanding. Does not research options or…
test-analyzer
Analyzes test coverage quality and identifies critical gaps in the test suite relative to code changes.
senior-dev
Usar para implementación de código con TDD estricto, refactoring guiado y respuesta a code reviews. Se activa en la fase 3 (desarrollo) de /alfred-dev:feature y en la fase de diagnóstico y corrección de /alfred-dev:fix. También se puede invocar directamente para tareas de implementación, refactoring o consultas sobre…