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/sananthanarayan/skilldrop/accessibility-auditnpx skills add sananthanarayan/skilldrop --skill accessibility-auditgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sananthanarayan/skilldropWrote 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/sananthanarayan/skilldrop/accessibility-audit)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sananthanarayan/skilldrop/accessibility-audit"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sananthanarayan/skilldrop/accessibility-audit.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 | $0.00102 | $0.01969 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00051 | $0.00984 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00020 | $0.00394 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00010 | $0.00197 |
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 5d 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 — 75 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
accessibility-audit
Finds the barriers that lock real people out of a UI — and cites the exact success criterion, names the assistive tech that hits the wall, and separates what an automated scanner catches from what only a human with a screen reader will. The UI counterpart to devils-advocate (code), doc-critique (docs), and threat-model (designs): one adversarial pass, severity-tagged, evidence-first. Automated tools catch perhaps a third of WCAG issues; this audit is built for the other two thirds.
How to respond
-
Establish what's auditable from the input, and say what isn't. Inputs vary in what they reveal:
- Component/page code or markup — the richest: roles, labels, semantics, focus management, tab order are all inspectable.
- Screenshot/image — visual only: contrast, target size, text-as-image, visible focus if captured. Keyboard behavior, screen-reader output, and focus order are not observable — list them as "must verify with live AT", never guess a pass.
- A described flow — reason about it, flag the checks that need the real thing. Default standard is WCAG 2.2 level AA; note if the user wants A or AAA. State the input's coverage limits up front so a clean section never reads as a guarantee it can't be.
-
Sweep all four POUR principles using the success-criterion catalog in
reference.md— Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, Robust. Don't transcribe the catalog; run it as a lens and report only what the UI actually fails or can't be verified for. The high-yield manual checks scanners miss, swept explicitly: keyboard-only operability (every interactive element reachable and operable, visible focus, no traps, logical order), screen-reader semantics (name/role/value, headings, landmarks, alt-text quality not just presence), meaningful sequence and focus order, error identification and recovery, reflow/zoom to 400%, target size (2.2), and motion/animation preferences.
What ships with it
3 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.
- 5d ago First seen · 75 lines · 102 tokens per session scan A 8e8d9e96da77
accessibility-audit is a skill published in the GitHub repository sananthanarayan/skilldrop (2 stars, last pushed 21d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 102 tokens to every session and 1,969 once invoked, about $0.0005 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
openlore-plan-refactor
Identify a high-priority refactoring target, assess its blast radius, and write .openlore/refactor-plan.md without changing code. Use when asked to plan or prioritize a refactor.
openlore-brainstorm
Transform a feature idea into an annotated story using a Domain Sketch or Constrained Option Tree. Use when asked to brainstorm, explore, or shape a feature before implementation.
openlore-debug
Debug with OpenLore structural context, an explicit root-cause hypothesis, and RED/GREEN verification. Use when a bug, failure, or regression needs diagnosis and repair.
openlore-execute-refactor
Apply a confirmed .openlore/refactor-plan.md with a test gate after each change. Use when asked to execute or continue an OpenLore refactoring plan.
openlore-analyze-codebase
Run a full static OpenLore analysis and summarize architecture, call graph, refactoring issues, and duplicate code. Use when asked to analyze, map, or assess a codebase without LLM inference.
team-repair
Re-index OKF v0.2 index.md/log.md files, derive CDR.md, rebuild .skills.json and AGENTS.md in team-ai-directives, migrate v0.1→v0.2 frontmatter, scan for rule conflicts, and verify directive freshness. Use when indexes are inconsistent, orphans are detected, after bulk changes, or for periodic team AI directives…