Getting it into your agent
It runs from inside its repository, so the clone comes first — what it calls does not travel with the file alone.
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sun2443/designer-skillsnpx agentmods add skills/sun2443/designer-skills/accessibility-reviewWrote 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/sun2443/designer-skills/accessibility-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/sun2443/designer-skills/accessibility-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sun2443/designer-skills/accessibility-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/sun2443/designer-skills/accessibility-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/sun2443/designer-skills/accessibility-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 | $0.00062 | $0.01145 |
| Opus 5.5 | $0.00025 | $0.00458 |
| Sonnet 5.5 | $0.00012 | $0.00229 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00114 |
Grade A, and why
accessibility-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 13d 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.
This is a copy
100% identical to accessibility-review — 0 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 129 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
/accessibility-review
If you see unfamiliar placeholders or need to check which tools are connected, see CONNECTORS.md.
Audit a design or page for WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility compliance.
Usage
/accessibility-review $ARGUMENTS
Audit for accessibility: @$1
WCAG 2.1 AA Quick Reference
Perceivable
- 1.1.1 Non-text content has alt text
- 1.3.1 Info and structure conveyed semantically
- 1.4.3 Contrast ratio >= 4.5:1 (normal text), >= 3:1 (large text)
- 1.4.11 Non-text contrast >= 3:1 (UI components, graphics)
Operable
- 2.1.1 All functionality available via keyboard
- 2.4.3 Logical focus order
- 2.4.7 Visible focus indicator
- 2.5.5 Touch target >= 44x44 CSS pixels
Understandable
- 3.2.1 Predictable on focus (no unexpected changes)
- 3.3.1 Error identification (describe the error)
- 3.3.2 Labels or instructions for inputs
Robust
- 4.1.2 Name, role, value for all UI components
Common Issues
- Insufficient color contrast
- Missing form labels
- No keyboard access to interactive elements
- Missing alt text on meaningful images
- Focus traps in modals
- Missing ARIA landmarks
- Auto-playing media without controls
- Time limits without extension options
Testing Approach
- Automated scan (catches ~30% of issues)
- Keyboard-only navigation
- Screen reader testing (VoiceOver, NVDA)
- Color contrast verification
- Zoom to 200% — does layout break?
Output
## Accessibility Audit: [Design/Page Name]
**Standard:** WCAG 2.1 AA | **Date:** [Date]
### Summary
**Issues found:** [X] | **Critical:** [X] | **Major:** [X] | **Minor:** [X]
### Findings
#### Perceivable
| # | Issue | WCAG Criterion | Severity | Recommendation |
|---|-------|---------------|----------|----------------|
| 1 | [Issue] | [1.4.3 Contrast] | 🔴 Critical | [Fix] |
#### Operable
| # | Issue | WCAG Criterion | Severity | Recommendation |
|---|-------|---------------|----------|----------------|
| 1 | [Issue] | [2.1.1 Keyboard] | 🟡 Major | [Fix] |
#### Understandable
| # | Issue | WCAG Criterion | Severity | Recommendation |
|---|-------|---------------|----------|----------------|
| 1 | [Issue] | [3.3.2 Labels] | 🟢 Minor | [Fix] |
#### Robust
| # | Issue | WCAG Criterion | Severity | Recommendation |
|---|-------|---------------|----------|----------------|
| 1 | [Issue] | [4.1.2 Name, Role, Value] | 🟡 Major | [Fix] |
### Color Contrast Check
| Element | Foreground | Background | Ratio | Required | Pass? |
|---------|-----------|------------|-------|----------|-------|
| [Body text] | [color] | [color] | [X]:1 | 4.5:1 | ✅/❌ |
### Keyboard Navigation
| Element | Tab Order | Enter/Space | Escape | Arrow Keys |
|---------|-----------|-------------|--------|------------|
| [Element] | [Order] | [Behavior] | [Behavior] | [Behavior] |
### Screen Reader
| Element | Announced As | Issue |
|---------|-------------|-------|
| [Element] | [What SR says] | [Problem if any] |
### Priority Fixes
1. **[Critical fix]** — Affects [who] and blocks [what]
2. **[Major fix]** — Improves [what] for [who]
3. **[Minor fix]** — Nice to have
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.
- 13d ago First seen · 129 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A ef42982af0d5
accessibility-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository sun2443/designer-skills (0 stars, last pushed 6mo ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 1,145 once invoked, about $0.0002 per session on Opus 5.5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 100% identical to accessibility-review, differing in 0 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
anti-slop-design
Autonomous Principal Design Technologist. Cures vibe-coded software from AI frontend slop using curated token archetypes and 7-axis quality gating.
chakra-ui-builder
Build responsive, accessible UI components and layouts using Chakra UI v3, install or configure Chakra UI in new and existing projects, and design scalable themes using tokens, semantic tokens, recipes, and slot recipes. Use this skill whenever a user asks to build, create, or generate any UI component, page, form…
visual-ralph
Visual Ralph orchestration for frontend UI from generated references, static references, or live URL targets, using $ultragoal with built-in visual verdict and pixel-diff evidence until the implementation matches and leaves a reproducible design system.
frontend-ui-dark-ts
Build dark-themed React applications using Tailwind CSS with custom theming, glassmorphism effects, and Framer Motion animations. Use when creating dashboards, admin panels, or data-rich interfaces with a refined dark aesthetic.
prototype-web
A clickable, high-fidelity web product prototype with navigation, a hero section, feature cards, steps, social proof, and optional pricing. It is designed to resemble a finished landing page while remaining a prototype.
frontend-visual-qa
Audits rendered UI and specific task/object-link handoffs; excludes ordinary source citations alone. Audits already-rendered UI and Markdown/Obsidian image layout — web app, deck/slide, dashboard, design-system, or Electron/native app — via real-browser/native-app journeys and a Playwright sweep. Use after UI…