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.
75
70%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./design/skills/accessibility-review/SKILL.mdQuality
Discovery
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. The explicit trigger phrases and contextual conditions make it easy for Claude to know when to select this skill. The main weakness is that the 'what' portion could be more specific about the concrete actions or outputs the skill produces (e.g., generating reports, listing violations, suggesting remediation).
Suggestions
Add specific output actions like 'identifies WCAG violations, generates a prioritized list of issues, and suggests remediation steps' to strengthen the 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 for specific accessibility concerns before handoff). | 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 with specific trigger terms like 'a11y', 'accessible', and domain-specific concerns. Unlikely to conflict with other skills unless there are multiple accessibility-related skills. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
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 accessibility audit framework with a comprehensive output template and useful WCAG reference. Its main weaknesses are the lack of concrete, executable testing steps (contrast checking tools, specific commands) and the overly large output template that dominates the file. The workflow could benefit from explicit validation checkpoints and clearer sequencing.
Suggestions
Add concrete tool commands for automated checks (e.g., specific contrast-checking utilities, axe-core CLI commands) instead of vague 'automated scan' and 'color contrast verification' steps.
Move the large output template to a separate file (e.g., AUDIT_TEMPLATE.md) and reference it from the main skill to improve scannability.
Add explicit validation checkpoints to the testing approach, such as 'If contrast ratio fails, flag as Critical before proceeding to keyboard testing.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The WCAG quick reference and common issues list are useful reference material, but the output template is quite lengthy and could be more concise. The tips section includes some unnecessary hedging ('My audit is a great start'). Overall mostly efficient but the output template dominates the file. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides a clear output template and WCAG criteria reference, which is actionable for structuring the audit report. However, the testing approach is vague ('Automated scan', 'Screen reader testing') without specifying concrete tools or commands. There's no executable code for contrast checking or other automated steps. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The testing approach section lists 5 steps but they lack explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops. There's no guidance on what to do when issues are found during each step, no clear sequencing of the audit process, and no verification that the audit is complete. The steps read more like a checklist than a workflow. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references CONNECTORS.md appropriately, and the content is organized into logical sections. However, the massive output template could be split into a separate TEMPLATE.md file, and the WCAG quick reference could be a separate reference document. The inline output template makes the skill harder to scan. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 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.
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
f55b539
- 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.