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 skills add Community-Access/accessibility-agents --skill pr-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Community-Access/accessibility-agentsWrote 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/skills/community-access/accessibility-agents/pr-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/community-access/accessibility-agents/pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/community-access/accessibility-agents/pr-review/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/skills/community-access/accessibility-agents/pr-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/community-access/accessibility-agents/pr-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>- NVIDIA SkillSpector warn
SkillSpector: 6 findings, up to high
These are SkillSpector’s own severities. On a checked sample its high-severity flags on skills were ~96% false positives — a documented command, a public API, a “never do X” rule — so we show them as a caution to read, not a verdict. Why →
- high Prompt Injection · line 553 Hidden instructions were detected in comments or invisible text. These could contain malicious directives. Manual review is recommended.Fix: Audit all comments and invisible characters. Remove any instructions that direct the agent to perform unauthorized actions. Use plain, reviewable content.
- high Prompt Injection · line 610 Hidden instructions were detected in comments or invisible text. These could contain malicious directives. Manual review is recommended.Fix: Audit all comments and invisible characters. Remove any instructions that direct the agent to perform unauthorized actions. Use plain, reviewable content.
- medium Agent Snooping · line 11 Skill enumerates or reads other installed skills. Access to other skills' SKILL.md files or the skills directory reveals prompt instructions, capabilities, and secrets that should be invisible to peer skills.Fix: Remove all code or instructions that list or read other skills' files or directories. Skills should operate independently; cross-skill access is a privilege escalation.
- medium Agent Snooping · line 11 Skill enumerates or reads other installed skills. Access to other skills' SKILL.md files or the skills directory reveals prompt instructions, capabilities, and secrets that should be invisible to peer skills.Fix: Remove all code or instructions that list or read other skills' files or directories. Skills should operate independently; cross-skill access is a privilege escalation.
- medium Agent Snooping · line 11 Skill enumerates or reads other installed skills. Access to other skills' SKILL.md files or the skills directory reveals prompt instructions, capabilities, and secrets that should be invisible to peer skills.Fix: Remove all code or instructions that list or read other skills' files or directories. Skills should operate independently; cross-skill access is a privilege escalation.
- medium Excessive Agency · line 1146 Skill enables autonomous high-impact decisions without human-in-the-loop verification. Critical operations (destructive commands, financial transactions, data deletion) should require explicit user confirmation.Fix: Add human-in-the-loop confirmation for destructive, irreversible, or high-impact operations. Never auto-execute commands that modify files, send data, or alter system state.
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 | $0.00018 | $0.01212 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00007 | $0.00485 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00004 | $0.00242 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00002 | $0.00121 |
Grade A, and why
pr-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 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 125 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
PR Review Agent
Shared instructions Code review standards
Skills: github-workflow-standards, github-scanning, github-analytics-scoring
You are the user's code review command center -- a senior engineer who doesn't just show diffs but actively analyzes changes, spots patterns, flags risks, surfaces developer intent, and produces structured review documents that can be saved, annotated, and acted on later.
Critical: You MUST generate both a .md and .html version of every review document. Follow the dual output and accessibility standards in shared-instructions.md.
Progress Announcements
Narrate every step of the asset pull. Never mention tool names:
Fetching PR metadata and file list...
Pulling diff and before/after snapshots...
Checking CI status and linked issues...
Analyzing changes and generating review document...
Review ready.
For delta detection (reviewing a PR that was already reviewed):
Loading previous review for PR #{N}...
Comparing against current diff...
Delta detected: {N} new comments addressed, {M} findings remain open.
Confidence Levels
Every finding in the review document must include a confidence level:
| Level | When to Use |
|---|---|
| High | Pattern definitively identified, multiple signals corroborate it |
| Medium | Likely issue, but context outside the diff might explain it |
| Low | Possible concern; flag for human judgment, not blocking |
Format in the review table:
| File | Finding | Severity | Confidence |
|------|---------|----------|------------|
| auth.ts | Token stored in localStorage | Critical | **High** |
| utils.ts | No null check before .map() | Warning | **Medium** |
Delta Tracking
When a previous review document exists for this PR:
What ships with it
4 files beside SKILL.md in the same directory: the scripts, references and assets a skill reads on demand. Not counted in the per-session cost; read them before you install if any of them is executable.
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 Changed · -1,030 lines · -23 tokens per session 7e66d7e0ca22
- 1mo ago First seen · 1,155 lines · 41 tokens per session scan A c3c0fc19508e
pr-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Community-Access/accessibility-agents (428 stars, last pushed 1mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 18 tokens to every session and 1,212 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 2026-09-03.
Other skills, from other repositories
Accessibility Auditor
Comprehensive WCAG 2.1 AA compliance testing combining automated axe-core scans with manual keyboard navigation, screen reader compatibility, and focus management verification.
accessibility
Use when making a web UI conform to WCAG 2.2 Level AA — axe-core or Lighthouse a11y violations, keyboard operability, focus management, ARIA roles/names/live regions, contrast, tap-target size. NOT palette or visual intent (that is design), NOT test-runner setup (that is testing-web), NOT LCP/page-speed (that is…
Accessibility A11y Enhanced
Comprehensive WCAG compliance and accessibility testing covering ARIA, keyboard navigation, screen readers, color contrast, and automated a11y validation.
accessibility-commerce
Make your store usable by everyone with WCAG 2.1 AA compliance — screen reader support, keyboard navigation, and accessible cart and checkout flows.
accessibility-expert
Build interfaces usable by everyone: WCAG 2.2 conformance, semantic HTML, ARIA, keyboard navigation, screen readers and accessible forms. Use when the user mentions accessibility, a11y, WCAG, ARIA, screen readers, keyboard navigation, colour contrast, focus management, the European Accessibility Act or Section 508, or…
monochrome
Build accessible UI with monochrome, the framework-agnostic UI library for agents. Use whenever a project depends on monochrome or has ids starting with mct:, mcc:, or mcr:, and whenever you write or fix an accordion, collapsible, dialog or modal, dropdown or context menu, menubar, popover, tabs, or tooltip in HTML…