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 mshahiddigital/agentic-local-seo-audit --skill accessibility-auditgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/mshahiddigital/agentic-local-seo-auditWrote 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/mshahiddigital/agentic-local-seo-audit/accessibility-audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/mshahiddigital/agentic-local-seo-audit/accessibility-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mshahiddigital/agentic-local-seo-audit/accessibility-audit/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/mshahiddigital/agentic-local-seo-audit/accessibility-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/mshahiddigital/agentic-local-seo-audit/accessibility-audit.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 | $0.00064 | $0.04919 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00032 | $0.02459 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00013 | $0.00984 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00492 |
Grade A, and why
accessibility-audit 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 12d 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 — 378 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Accessibility Audit — Phase 19 (SEO-Focused)
Executive Summary
Accessibility and SEO are converging in 2025. Semantic HTML — the foundation of accessibility compliance — is also Googlebot's preferred signal architecture. Lighthouse accessibility score directly correlates with Core Web Vitals performance, particularly INP (Interaction to Next Paint, replaced FID March 2024) and CLS. Google's Quality Rater Guidelines (2024 update) explicitly flag accessibility as an E-E-A-T trust indicator. Legal exposure from accessibility failures is escalating: ADA Title III lawsuits reached 4,605 in 2023 (Seyfarth Shaw), and negative SERP results from lawsuit coverage directly harm brand SERP. AI search systems (Google AIO, ChatGPT, Perplexity) preferentially extract content from semantically correct, accessible HTML structures — inaccessible pages are de facto AI-invisible.
2025 accessibility benchmarks:
- WCAG 2.2 AA = current legal standard (US ADA, EU EAA effective June 2025, AU DDA)
- Lighthouse score ≥90 = target; <70 = flag as structural risk to E-E-A-T
- 96.3% of the top 1 million homepages have WCAG failures (WebAIM Million Report 2024)
- Semantic HTML headings = 41% higher featured snippet acquisition (SEMrush 2024)
- INP <200ms (Good) = primary CWV threshold since March 2024 — poor accessibility patterns (no skip links, large unoptimized tap targets) are INP contributors
- Touch target minimum: 24×24px (WCAG 2.2 new criterion 2.5.8, Oct 2023)
Why Accessibility Matters for SEO (2025)
- INP & CLS — poor accessibility (no skip links, large tap targets missing) causes bad Core Web Vital scores; INP target <200ms
- Crawlability — screen reader-friendly semantic HTML = Googlebot-friendly; JS-only content risks non-rendering
- E-E-A-T — inclusive design signals quality and professionalism — Quality Rater Guidelines (2024) specifically flag accessibility as a trust indicator
- Legal risk — ADA Title III lawsuits hit 4,605 cases in 2023 (Seyfarth Shaw data); lawsuits = negative SERP results (reputation risk)
- Featured snippets — well-structured semantic HTML wins 2–3× more featured snippets vs. unsemantic markup
- WCAG 2.2 — new criteria (October 2023): Focus Not Obscured, Dragging Movements, Target Size (minimum 24×24px)
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.
- 12d ago First seen · 378 lines · 64 tokens per session scan A e1f0dca89a83
accessibility-audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository mshahiddigital/agentic-local-seo-audit (20 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 64 tokens to every session and 4,919 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
top-design
Create award-winning, immersive web experiences at the level of Awwwards-featured agencies. Use when the user mentions "Awwwards quality", "make my site stunning", "scroll animations", "parallax storytelling", "cinematic web design", "portfolio site", or "brand experience". Also trigger when elevating a standard…
design-everyday-things
Apply foundational design principles: affordances, signifiers, constraints, feedback, and conceptual models. Use when the user mentions "why is this confusing", "affordance", "error prevention", "discoverability", "human-centered design", "mental model", "mapping", "seven stages of action", "users keep making…
ux-heuristics
Evaluate and improve interface usability using heuristic analysis. Use when the user mentions "usability audit", "users are confused", "form usability", "navigation problems", "Nielsen heuristics", "cognitive walkthrough", or "is this easy to use". Also trigger when reviewing a design for usability issues, improving…
interface-craft
Raises the visual and interaction quality of an interface — layout, hierarchy, type, spacing, density, and the details that separate a considered product from a generic one. Use this when a screen works but looks unfinished or default, when a layout feels crowded or arbitrary, when a page has no clear focal point, or…
token-audit
Audit a design system's token definitions for naming violations, missing semantic tiers, and structural debt. This audits how tokens are defined and organised, NOT how they are consumed in code. Trigger when someone says: audit my tokens, token naming review, are my tokens consistent, token health check, review my…
stakeholder-brief
Write a one-page stakeholder brief translating design system health or status into business language. Trigger when someone says: stakeholder update, exec brief, leadership summary, status report for leadership, system status for non-designers, write a brief for the business, or anything about communicating design…