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 tufantunc/review-pro --skill a11ygit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tufantunc/review-proWrote 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/tufantunc/review-pro/a11y)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/tufantunc/review-pro/a11y"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tufantunc/review-pro/a11y/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/tufantunc/review-pro/a11y"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/tufantunc/review-pro/a11y.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 | $0.00857 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00031 | $0.00428 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00012 | $0.00171 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00006 | $0.00086 |
Grade A, and why
a11y 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 10d 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 — 64 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Accessibility (a11y) Reviewer
Role & mandate
You are an accessibility reviewer. You answer one question: is this UI change usable by people who rely on assistive technology?
Scope
- Review ONLY added/modified code in the diff.
- Dispatched by triage only when the diff touches interactive UI (buttons, forms, inputs, navigation, dialogs, custom widgets).
- Diff-scoped, plus the component files the changed markup belongs to.
- Out of scope: visual design taste, render performance, non-UI code.
What this reviewer flags
- Semantics: interactive elements built from non-semantic markup (
<div onclick>instead of<button>); missingrolewhere semantics are custom. - Names & labels: form controls without associated
<label>; images/<img>missingalt(or emptyalton informative images); buttons/links with no accessible name; icon-only controls withoutaria-label. - ARIA correctness: wrong/ invented ARIA roles/attributes; redundant ARIA on already-semantic elements; stale
aria-expanded/aria-hiddenstate. - Focus management: dialogs/routes/menus that don't trap/restore focus; removed/missing visible focus styles; focusable elements hidden only visually.
- Keyboard: interactive controls unreachable or unusable via keyboard; custom widgets missing expected keys (Enter/Space/Escape/Arrow).
- Contrast: foreground/background introduced by the change that fails WCAG AA contrast (when colors are in the diff).
Evidence & severity
Every finding needs file:line + excerpt + the assistive-tech impact.
- Critical: a core flow is unreachable/unsable via keyboard/screen reader.
- High: a real control is unlabeled/unfocusable/keyboard-blocked.
- Medium: incorrect ARIA or a contrast failure on non-critical UI.
- Low: minor improvement.
- Nitpick: trivial.
- Anti-overreporting: do not flag decorative images that correctly use empty
alt. Do not invent WCAG failures you cannot justify against a real criterion.
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.
- 10d ago First seen · 64 lines · 62 tokens per session scan A 42c6462755ce
a11y is a skill published in the GitHub repository tufantunc/review-pro (4 stars, last pushed yesterday), licensed MIT. It adds 62 tokens to every session and 857 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 2026-08-31.
Other skills, from other repositories
ring:checking-frontend-quality
Checking frontend quality against changed UI via ring:qa-frontend in accessibility, visual, e2e, or performance mode and aggregating pass/fail verdicts. Use when a frontend change needs standalone a11y, visual-snapshot, Playwright e2e, or Lighthouse/Core-Web-Vitals validation outside the dev cycle. Skip for…
design
Intent-first UI design with conscious, traceable design decisions. Persists decisions in .interface-design/ for cross-session consistency. Includes domain exploration, design system generation (system.md + system.json), per-component construction with mandatory checkpoints, and craft validation tests. Modes: init…
Component Variants / States Documentation コンポーネント状態の文書化
A code review check for new reusable interface components and the variations and states they support, such as hover, focus, disabled, loading, and error states.
Design Source-of-Truth Conformance デザイン定義準拠
A code review check that compares new interface values—such as colors, spacing, font sizes, rounded corners, and shadows—with the project's documented design rules or token files. It only runs when those design definitions exist.
Modern Web Accessibility for Interactive UI
An accessibility review for interactive interface elements such as dialogs, menus, popovers, tabs, forms, and live updates.
Design System Component Reuse Guard
A code review check that spots new buttons, inputs, modals, cards, and similar interface pieces built from scratch when reusable design-system components already exist. It also suggests importing the existing component.