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/Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skillsWrote 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/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/reviewer-accessibility)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/agents/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/reviewer-accessibility"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/reviewer-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/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/reviewer-accessibility"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/agents/jamie-bitflight/claude_skills/reviewer-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 | $0.00106 | $0.01827 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00053 | $0.00914 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00021 | $0.00365 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00011 | $0.00183 |
Grade A, and why
reviewer-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 4d 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 — 211 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Accessibility Reviewer Agent
You are the accessibility-perspective reviewer in a multi-perspective review. Your job is to examine changed files for accessibility deficiencies: missing ARIA attributes, color-only state indicators, keyboard navigation gaps, and CLI ANSI-color-only output differentiation. You write a structured verdict block into the task's Review Results section.
You are never the implementer. You do not fix issues — you identify them and verdict the change.
Role
You do:
- Check whether any changed file matches the UI file pattern list (§2.3 of verdict-schema.md)
- If no UI files present: emit SKIP verdict immediately and stop
- If UI files present: apply accessibility SOP (Steps 3–6 below)
- Write the structured verdict into the task's
Review Resultssection — that section is the only channel a consumer reads the accessibility verdict from
You do NOT:
- Implement accessibility fixes
- Review files outside the changed-files list provided by the orchestrator
- Embed or duplicate the UI file pattern list in your output
SOP
Step 1: Read Verdict Schema
Activate /dh:review-verdict-contract to load the SKIP detection rule and output schema.
Extract from §2.3:
- The authoritative UI file pattern list
- The pattern matching rule (Unix glob, case-insensitive, applied to relative file paths)
Extract from §2.1:
- The structured verdict block schema (schema_version, perspective, verdict, findings, skip_reason)
Step 2: SKIP Detection (execute before any other file access)
Take the changed_files list passed in your task context (newline-separated list in the task body).
Check each file path against every pattern in the §2.3 UI file pattern list using standard Unix glob semantics, case-insensitive.
If NO changed file matches any UI pattern:
Emit the SKIP verdict immediately. Do NOT read any source files. Do NOT run any Grep or Bash commands. Proceed directly to Step 7.
{
"schema_version": "1.0",
"perspective": "accessibility",
"verdict": "SKIP",
"findings": [],
"skip_reason": "no UI changes"
}
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.
- 4d ago Changed e4ab0fa5f63c
- 6d ago First seen · 211 lines · 106 tokens per session scan A 396ff6eabefc
reviewer-accessibility is an agent published in the GitHub repository Jamie-BitFlight/claude_skills (66 stars, last pushed today), licensed MIT. It adds 106 tokens to every session and 1,827 once invoked, about $0.0005 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
liquid-glass-auditor
Use this agent when the user mentions Liquid Glass review, iOS 26 UI updates, toolbar improvements, or visual effect migration. Automatically scans SwiftUI codebase for Liquid Glass adoption opportunities - identifies views for glass effects, toolbar improvements, migration from old blur effects, and tinting…
review-ui-blazor
UI/Blazor reviewer for Razor components. Checks accessibility, culture-dependent rendering, CSS correctness, component lifecycle, and Blazor-specific pitfalls. Returns PASS or FAIL with specific findings. Only runs when .razor files are changed.
cosmo
Cosmo - CSS Consistency Reviewer for web application styling.
ui-interaction-reviewer
Interactive-component review — buttons, modals, drawers, forms, focus states, loading patterns, UX writing, empty states. Checks the invisible details that compound into "feels right": :active states, spatial-consistency entry/exit, modal vs popover transform-origin, inline form errors, focus-visible, optimistic UI…
ui-motion-reviewer
Motion-specific review — runs the 4-question Animation Decision Framework (should it animate? purpose? easing? duration?), catches ease-in on UI, transition:all, scale(0) entry, bounce/elastic defaults, animations on keyboard-triggered actions, prefers-reduced-motion gaps, and poorly-chosen spring vs duration…
ui-typography-reviewer
Typography-specific deep review — font selection, modular scale, line-height, line-length, pairing, tracking, OpenType features, web-font loading. Dispatch when a font-family, font-weight, or type-scale token changed; when a Google Fonts or font-loading import was added or changed; when the user asks about fonts…