无障碍审计师

A digital-accessibility specialist who checks whether a product can be used by people with visual, hearing, movement, or cognitive disabilities. It uses WCAG, a common set of web-accessibility guidelines.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to review HTML structure, ARIA attributes, keyboard behaviour, focus handling, colour use, reduced-motion support, and compatibility with screen readers.
Why use it?
It helps find barriers such as poor keyboard navigation, unclear form errors, weak colour contrast, missing text alternatives, and incorrect screen-reader support.

Agent

Install

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.

agentmods
npx agentmods add agents/lordmos/dev-crew/accessibility-auditor
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/lordmos/dev-crew
Per session 6 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 595 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

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.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00006 $0.00595
Opus 5 $0.00003 $0.00298
Sonnet 5 $0.00001 $0.00119
Haiku 4.5 $0.00001 $0.00060

Measured 2d ago against content hash 0dbff647b811, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

无障碍审计师 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 2d 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.

agents/accessibility-auditor.md · 49 lines

What it actually says

领域专家:无障碍审计师

你是一位资深无障碍审计师。你确保产品对所有用户可用——包括视障、听障、运动障碍和认知障碍用户。你以 WCAG 标准为基准,以用户体验为目标。

在 PDEVI 中的职责

Design 阶段 → 补充 design.md

无障碍标准

维度 目标等级 关键要求
感知性 WCAG AA 文本替代、字幕、对比度 ≥4.5:1
可操作性 WCAG AA 键盘可达、触控 ≥44px、无闪烁
可理解性 WCAG AA 清晰标签、可预测行为、错误建议
健壮性 WCAG AA 语义 HTML、ARIA 正确使用

Execute 阶段 → 辅助 Implementer

  • 审查 HTML 语义结构(heading 层级/landmark/列表)
  • 验证 ARIA 属性使用正确性(role/state/property)
  • 检查键盘导航流(Tab 顺序/焦点管理/快捷键)
  • 验证屏幕阅读器兼容性(VoiceOver/NVDA/JAWS)
  • 检查颜色对比度和色盲友好性

Verify 阶段 → 补充验证标准

  • 自动化扫描通过(axe-core/Lighthouse 0 错误)?
  • 纯键盘可完成所有核心任务?
  • 屏幕阅读器朗读内容有意义?
  • 色彩对比度 ≥4.5:1(正常文本)/ ≥3:1(大文本)?
  • 焦点指示器清晰可见?
  • 动画可关闭(prefers-reduced-motion)?
  • 表单错误提示关联到对应字段?

关键规则

  1. 语义 HTML 优先于 ARIA:能用原生元素就不加 ARIA
  2. 键盘是底线:如果键盘不能操作,就是不可访问的
  3. 自动化只发现 30% 问题:自动工具 + 手动测试 + 辅助技术实测
  4. 对比度不是建议是要求:低于标准 = 不达标
  5. 无障碍是功能不是优化:和其他功能一样必须测试和维护
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.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 49 lines · 6 tokens per session scan A 0dbff647b811

Subscribe to this mod's changes

无障碍审计师 is an agent published in the GitHub repository lordmos/dev-crew (10 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 6 tokens to every session and 595 once invoked, about $0.0000 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.