CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

wcag-audit-patterns

Comprehensive guide to auditing web content against WCAG 2.2 guidelines with actionable remediation strategies.

44

Quality

44%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills/skills/wcag-audit-patterns/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is wcag-audit-patterns in rmyndharis/antigravity-skills

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

50%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

This skill provides a reasonable high-level framework for WCAG auditing but lacks the concrete, executable guidance needed to be truly actionable. The workflow is logically sequenced but missing explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops. The content delegates heavily to a referenced playbook that doesn't appear to exist in the bundle.

Suggestions

Add concrete examples: specific axe-core commands, sample audit output format, and at least one remediation code snippet (e.g., fixing a missing alt attribute or ARIA label).

Include explicit validation checkpoints in the workflow, such as 'Verify zero critical violations in axe scan before proceeding' and a feedback loop for failed re-tests.

Provide the referenced `resources/implementation-playbook.md` file or inline key checklists/templates so the skill is self-contained enough to be useful.

Add a concrete example mapping an issue to a WCAG criterion with severity and remediation (e.g., 'Missing alt text → WCAG 1.1.1 → Critical → Add descriptive alt attribute').

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient with minimal unnecessary explanation. The 'Use this skill when' and 'Do not use this skill when' sections add some bulk but are reasonable for scoping. Minor verbosity in repeating the resource reference.

4 / 5

Actionability

The instructions are high-level steps without concrete commands, code examples, or specific techniques. 'Run automated scans' and 'Perform manual checks' lack the specifics needed to execute—no example axe commands, no sample audit output format, no concrete remediation code.

2 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Steps are listed in a logical sequence with a re-test step (step 4), but validation checkpoints are implicit rather than explicit. There's no feedback loop for what to do if re-testing fails, and no concrete validation criteria or commands.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

References `resources/implementation-playbook.md` for detailed content, which is appropriate progressive disclosure. However, the bundle file doesn't exist (no bundle provided), the reference is repeated twice, and there's no indication of what's actually in that file or other sub-references for different topics.

3 / 5

Total

12

/

20

Passed

Description

39%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description identifies a clear domain (WCAG 2.2 accessibility auditing) but lacks concrete actions, natural trigger terms users would use, and any 'when to use' guidance. It reads more like a document title than a functional skill description that would help Claude select it from a large skill library.

Suggestions

Add a 'Use when...' clause with trigger terms like 'accessibility audit', 'WCAG compliance', 'a11y', 'ADA', 'screen reader compatibility', or 'accessibility check'.

List specific concrete actions such as 'checks color contrast ratios, validates ARIA attributes, tests keyboard navigation, reviews alt text, identifies focus order issues'.

Include common synonyms and natural phrases users would say, such as 'accessibility', 'a11y', 'ADA compliance', 'Section 508', and file/technology references like 'HTML', 'CSS', 'web pages'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (WCAG 2.2 auditing) but actions are minimal and generic — 'auditing web content' and 'remediation strategies' are broad descriptions without concrete actions like 'check color contrast ratios', 'validate ARIA labels', or 'test keyboard navigation'.

2 / 5

Completeness

Provides a vague 'what' (auditing web content against WCAG 2.2 with remediation strategies) but has no 'when' clause at all. The absence of explicit trigger guidance caps this at 3 per the rubric, and the weak 'what' brings it down to 2.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes relevant keywords like 'WCAG 2.2', 'web content', and 'auditing', but misses common natural terms users would say such as 'accessibility', 'a11y', 'screen reader', 'ADA compliance', 'alt text', or 'contrast ratio'.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The specific mention of 'WCAG 2.2' and 'auditing' creates a fairly distinct niche that wouldn't easily overlap with general web development or design skills. Minor overlap risk with broader accessibility or web testing skills.

4 / 5

Total

11

/

20

Passed

Validation

90%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

frontmatter_unknown_keys

Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata

Warning

Total

10

/

11

Passed

Repository
administrakt0r/AI-Agents-Safe-Coding-Skills
Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.