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 Owl-Listener/inclusive-design-skills --skill reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Owl-Listener/inclusive-design-skillsWrote 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/owl-listener/inclusive-design-skills/review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/owl-listener/inclusive-design-skills/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/owl-listener/inclusive-design-skills/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/owl-listener/inclusive-design-skills/review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/owl-listener/inclusive-design-skills/review.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 | $0.00058 | $0.00525 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00029 | $0.00262 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00105 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00052 |
Grade A, and why
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 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 — 65 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Review Accessibility Decisions
Surface the accessibility decisions that were made — deliberately or by default — in an existing feature, and document them before they get lost.
Process
Step 1: Identify Implicit Decisions
Walk through the feature and list every design choice that affects accessibility, even if nobody explicitly decided it:
- How is keyboard navigation handled?
- What happens with screen readers?
- What colour and contrast choices were made?
- How are errors communicated?
- What motion and animation exists?
- What user preferences are respected?
Many of these were never consciously decided — they were inherited from a framework, copied from another feature, or left at defaults. Those are still decisions. Document them.
Step 2: Assess Each Decision
For each identified decision, determine:
- Was this intentional or accidental?
- Does it meet current accessibility standards?
- Who does it serve well? Who does it exclude?
- Is there evidence behind it or was it arbitrary?
Step 3: Check for Undocumented Tradeoffs
Using tradeoff-analysis, identify decisions where accessibility was traded for something else:
- Speed: "we didn't have time to make this keyboard accessible"
- Complexity: "the accessible version was too hard to build"
- Design: "the accessible version didn't look right"
- Ignorance: "we didn't know this was an issue"
Document each with its current impact on users.
Step 4: Map Current Compliance
Using compliance-mapping, assess the feature's current state against WCAG 2.2 Level AA. Identify conformance gaps.
Step 5: Catalogue Debt
Using accessibility-debt-tracking, create a debt record for every known issue discovered in this review.
Output
Deliver a decision review report:
- Decision inventory — every accessibility-affecting decision found, marked as intentional or accidental
- Undocumented tradeoffs — decisions where accessibility was sacrificed, with current user impact
- Compliance gaps — WCAG criteria not currently met
- Debt register — known issues with severity, owner, and recommended timeline
- Recommendations — which decisions should be revisited first
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 · 65 lines · 58 tokens per session scan A 947c7a52276c
review is a skill published in the GitHub repository Owl-Listener/inclusive-design-skills (98 stars, last pushed 3mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 58 tokens to every session and 525 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
accessibility-compliance-accessibility-audit
You are an accessibility expert specializing in WCAG compliance, inclusive design, and assistive technology compatibility. Conduct audits, identify barriers, and provide remediation guidance.
ss-review
Review UI code for design system compliance, accessibility, and best practices.
ada-plan-view-accessibility
Use when checking simplified ADA-derived plan-view bathroom accessibility constraints such as turning space, door clear width, toilet centerline, grab bars, and lavatory knee/toe clearance.
mqc-litigation-visual-redraw
Redraw a litigation diagram into a restrained, court-ready presentation graphic (SVG + PNG) WITHOUT changing any text or legal meaning. Use this whenever the user supplies a case timeline, a legal process flowchart, OR a party/relationship diagram and wants it cleaned up, beautified, redrawn, made professional…
kit-tipo
Define a tipografia do site como decisão — e, principalmente, resolve se dá para ENTREGAR. Confere licença (site de marca paga por tipo, e acervo montado a partir de site de marca vem cheio de fonte comercial que não se pode servir), propõe substituto livre com critério de desenho, monta o par display + corpo, gera a…
form-accessibility
WCAG 2.2 AA compliance for forms, ARIA patterns, focus management, keyboard navigation, and screen reader support. Use when implementing accessible forms in any framework. The compliance foundation that ensures forms work for everyone.