accessibility-review

Run a WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility audit on a design or page. Trigger with "audit accessibility", "check a11y", "is this accessible?", or when reviewing a design for color contrast, keyboard navigation, touch target size, or screen reader behavior before handoff.

Quality

70%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

—

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./design/skills/accessibility-review/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

50%

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 solid WCAG 2.1 AA reference framework with a well-structured output template, but it's more of a reference document than an actionable workflow. The output template is comprehensive but overly long for inline inclusion, and the testing approach lacks concrete steps Claude can actually execute. The skill would benefit from tighter focus on what Claude can realistically audit (visual inspection of designs, code review) versus what requires external tools.

Suggestions

Move the large output template to a separate TEMPLATE.md file and reference it, keeping only a brief example in the main skill

Add concrete, actionable steps for what Claude should actually do when given a design image or code — e.g., 'Extract all text colors and background colors, compute contrast ratios using the formula...'

Add a validation checkpoint after the audit: 'Verify each finding maps to a specific WCAG criterion and includes a concrete fix recommendation before presenting results'

Remove the tips section or reduce to one line — Claude already understands prioritization and the limitations of automated vs manual testing

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The WCAG quick reference and common issues list are useful reference material, but the output template is very lengthy and could be more concise. The tips section explains things Claude already knows (e.g., 'manual testing with VoiceOver/NVDA catches things I can't'). Some trimming is possible.	2 / 3
Actionability	The skill provides a structured output template and WCAG criteria references, which is helpful. However, there's no executable code or concrete tooling commands — the 'Testing Approach' is a high-level checklist rather than specific steps Claude can actually perform. The audit process relies on Claude visually inspecting designs without concrete mechanisms.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The testing approach lists 5 steps but lacks validation checkpoints or feedback loops. There's no guidance on what to do when issues are found during the audit process itself, no decision points, and no explicit sequencing between analyzing the input and producing the output template.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The content references CONNECTORS.md appropriately, but the massive output template dominates the file and could be split into a separate template file. The skill is somewhat monolithic with the WCAG reference, common issues, testing approach, and full output template all inline.	2 / 3
	Total	8 / 12 Passed

Description

89%

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

This is a strong skill description with excellent trigger term coverage and clear completeness. Its main weakness is that it focuses more on what it checks (color contrast, keyboard navigation, etc.) rather than what concrete actions or outputs it produces (e.g., generating reports, flagging violations, providing remediation suggestions). The specificity of the domain and triggers make it highly distinctive.

Suggestions

Add concrete output actions like 'flags WCAG violations, generates remediation suggestions, and produces an audit report' to improve specificity of capabilities.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	It names the domain (WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility audit) and mentions specific aspects like color contrast, keyboard navigation, touch target size, and screen reader behavior, but doesn't list concrete output actions (e.g., 'generates a report', 'flags violations', 'suggests fixes'). The actions are more about what it checks than what it does.	2 / 3
Completeness	Clearly answers both 'what' (run a WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility audit on a design or page) and 'when' (explicit trigger phrases and contextual triggers like reviewing a design before handoff). The 'Trigger with' clause serves as an explicit 'Use when' equivalent.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Excellent coverage of natural trigger terms: 'audit accessibility', 'check a11y', 'is this accessible?', plus specific concern areas like 'color contrast', 'keyboard navigation', 'touch target size', 'screen reader behavior', and the contextual trigger 'before handoff'. These are terms users would naturally use.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Very distinct niche — WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility auditing is a specific domain unlikely to conflict with other skills. The trigger terms are highly specific to accessibility concerns and wouldn't overlap with general design or code review skills.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Validation

90%

Warnings & errors only

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

Validation — 10 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
frontmatter_unknown_keys	Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata	Warning

	Total	10 / 11 Passed

Repository: anthropics/knowledge-work-plugins
Commit: fb45dfd

Reviewed: about 1 hour ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.