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 skills/anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins/accessibility-reviewnpx skills add anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins --skill accessibility-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/anthropics/knowledge-work-pluginsWhat 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 | $0.00062 | $0.01145 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00031 | $0.00573 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00229 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00114 |
Grade A, and why
accessibility-review 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 3d 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.
Copies of this mod
1 near-identical copy found in the catalogue:
- accessibility-review — 100% identical, 0 lines differ
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 129 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/accessibility-review
If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see CONNECTORS.md.
Audit a design or page for WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility compliance.
Usage
/accessibility-review $ARGUMENTS
Audit for accessibility: @$1
WCAG 2.1 AA Quick Reference
Perceivable
- 1.1.1 Non-text content has alt text
- 1.3.1 Info and structure conveyed semantically
- 1.4.3 Contrast ratio >= 4.5:1 (normal text), >= 3:1 (large text)
- 1.4.11 Non-text contrast >= 3:1 (UI components, graphics)
Operable
- 2.1.1 All functionality available via keyboard
- 2.4.3 Logical focus order
- 2.4.7 Visible focus indicator
- 2.5.5 Touch target >= 44x44 CSS pixels
Understandable
- 3.2.1 Predictable on focus (no unexpected changes)
- 3.3.1 Error identification (describe the error)
- 3.3.2 Labels or instructions for inputs
Robust
- 4.1.2 Name, role, value for all UI components
Common Issues
- Insufficient color contrast
- Missing form labels
- No keyboard access to interactive elements
- Missing alt text on meaningful images
- Focus traps in modals
- Missing ARIA landmarks
- Auto-playing media without controls
- Time limits without extension options
Testing Approach
- Automated scan (catches ~30% of issues)
- Keyboard-only navigation
- Screen reader testing (VoiceOver, NVDA)
- Color contrast verification
- Zoom to 200% — does layout break?
Output
## Accessibility Audit: [Design/Page Name]
**Standard:** WCAG 2.1 AA | **Date:** [Date]
### Summary
**Issues found:** [X] | **Critical:** [X] | **Major:** [X] | **Minor:** [X]
### Findings
#### Perceivable
| # | Issue | WCAG Criterion | Severity | Recommendation |
|---|-------|---------------|----------|----------------|
| 1 | [Issue] | [1.4.3 Contrast] | 🔴 Critical | [Fix] |
#### Operable
| # | Issue | WCAG Criterion | Severity | Recommendation |
|---|-------|---------------|----------|----------------|
| 1 | [Issue] | [2.1.1 Keyboard] | 🟡 Major | [Fix] |
#### Understandable
| # | Issue | WCAG Criterion | Severity | Recommendation |
|---|-------|---------------|----------|----------------|
| 1 | [Issue] | [3.3.2 Labels] | 🟢 Minor | [Fix] |
#### Robust
| # | Issue | WCAG Criterion | Severity | Recommendation |
|---|-------|---------------|----------|----------------|
| 1 | [Issue] | [4.1.2 Name, Role, Value] | 🟡 Major | [Fix] |
### Color Contrast Check
| Element | Foreground | Background | Ratio | Required | Pass? |
|---------|-----------|------------|-------|----------|-------|
| [Body text] | [color] | [color] | [X]:1 | 4.5:1 | ✅/❌ |
### Keyboard Navigation
| Element | Tab Order | Enter/Space | Escape | Arrow Keys |
|---------|-----------|-------------|--------|------------|
| [Element] | [Order] | [Behavior] | [Behavior] | [Behavior] |
### Screen Reader
| Element | Announced As | Issue |
|---------|-------------|-------|
| [Element] | [What SR says] | [Problem if any] |
### Priority Fixes
1. **[Critical fix]** — Affects [who] and blocks [what]
2. **[Major fix]** — Improves [what] for [who]
3. **[Minor fix]** — Nice to have
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.
- 3d ago First seen · 129 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A ef42982af0d5
accessibility-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins (23,791 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 1,145 once invoked, about $0.0003 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 2026-08-30.
Other skills, from other repositories
systematic-debugging
Use when encountering any bug, test failure, or unexpected behavior, before proposing fixes.
brainstorming
You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior. Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation.
auto-perf-optimize
Run agent-driven VS Code performance or memory investigations. Use when asked to launch Code OSS, automate a VS Code scenario, run the Chat memory smoke runner, capture renderer heap snapshots, take workflow screenshots, compare run summaries, or drive a repeatable scenario before heap-snapshot analysis.
chat-perf
Run chat perf benchmarks and memory leak checks against the local dev build or any published VS Code version. Use when investigating chat rendering regressions, validating perf-sensitive changes to chat UI, or checking for memory leaks in the chat response pipeline.
chat-pet-sprite-creation
Use when creating or changing VS Code chat pet sprite art, sprite sheets, state animations, eye treatments, Stable/Insiders variants, or pet transitions under src/vs/workbench/contrib/chat/browser/widget/media/chatPet.
cpu-profile-analysis
Analyze V8/Chrome CPU profiles (.cpuprofile) and DevTools trace files (Trace-.json). Use when: profiling performance, investigating slow functions, comparing code paths, finding bottlenecks, analyzing timeToRequest, understanding call trees from sampling profiler data, analyzing layout/paint/rendering, investigating…