Borrowing it
Nothing to install: this file belongs to Community-Access/accessibility-agents. Take a copy, put it at the same path in your own repository, and replace the rules that are about this project with yours.
curl -O https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Community-Access/accessibility-agents/main/.gemini/extensions/a11y-agents/skills/testing-strategy/SKILL.mdgit 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/testing-strategy)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/community-access/accessibility-agents/testing-strategy"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/community-access/accessibility-agents/testing-strategy.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" 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 | $0.00034 | $0.01212 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00017 | $0.00606 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00242 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00003 | $0.00121 |
Grade A, and why
testing-strategy 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.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 134 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Testing Strategy Skill
Decision frameworks for accessibility testing — when to use automated tools vs. manual testing, which screen reader + browser combinations to test, and how to write accessibility acceptance criteria.
Automated vs. Manual Testing Coverage
| What Automated Tools Catch (~30-40%) | What Requires Manual Testing (~60-70%) |
|---|---|
| Missing alt text on images | Alt text quality and accuracy |
| Missing form labels | Label clarity and helpfulness |
| Color contrast ratios (computed) | Color contrast in context (gradients, images) |
| Missing lang attribute | Correct language identification |
| Duplicate IDs | Logical reading order |
| Missing ARIA roles on custom widgets | Correct ARIA role for the interaction pattern |
| Heading hierarchy violations | Heading text meaningfulness |
| Empty links and buttons | Link/button text descriptiveness |
| Missing table headers | Table caption and header association quality |
| Syntax errors in ARIA | Screen reader announcement correctness |
Browser + Screen Reader Compatibility Matrix
Primary Test Combinations (Required)
| Screen Reader | Browser | OS | Priority |
|---|---|---|---|
| NVDA | Firefox | Windows | Must test |
| NVDA | Chrome | Windows | Must test |
| JAWS | Chrome | Windows | Must test |
| VoiceOver | Safari | macOS | Must test |
| VoiceOver | Safari | iOS | Must test |
| TalkBack | Chrome | Android | Should test |
Secondary (Nice to Have)
| Screen Reader | Browser | OS |
|---|---|---|
| Narrator | Edge | Windows |
| JAWS | Edge | Windows |
Testing Decision Tree
Is it a new component or page?
├── Yes → Full test coverage (automated + manual)
│ ├── Run axe-core / Lighthouse scan
│ ├── Keyboard-only navigation test
│ ├── Screen reader announcement test (NVDA + VoiceOver minimum)
│ └── Visual check at 200% zoom
└── No → What changed?
├── Colors/styling → Contrast check + visual review
├── Interactive behavior → Keyboard + screen reader test
├── Content/text → Screen reader announcement check
├── Layout/order → Reading order + focus order test
└── Dependencies updated → Regression scan (axe-core)
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 · 134 lines · 34 tokens per session scan A 57c072b73a5f
testing-strategy is a skill published in the GitHub repository Community-Access/accessibility-agents (405 stars, last pushed 26d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 34 tokens to every session and 1,212 once invoked, about $0.0002 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 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 A11y Enhanced
Comprehensive WCAG compliance and accessibility testing covering ARIA, keyboard navigation, screen readers, color contrast, and automated a11y validation.
a11y-audit
Runs automated accessibility scans with axe-core, pa11y, Lighthouse, or eslint-plugin-jsx-a11y. Interprets results, prioritizes violations, and generates fix recommendations. Use when asked to audit, scan, or check accessibility of a page, component, or codebase.
testing-strategy
Guides accessibility testing strategy — what to test automatically vs manually vs with assistive technology. Provides keyboard testing checklists, screen reader testing basics, and acceptance criteria templates. Use when planning testing, writing acceptance criteria, or deciding how to verify accessibility.
Axe-core Accessibility Testing
Accessibility testing skill using axe-core and Playwright for automated WCAG 2.1 compliance auditing, custom rules, and accessibility reporting.
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…