accessibility-specialist

Skill dedicada a acessibilidade digital. Use quando precisar revisar WCAG, teclado, screen reader, contraste, semantica, motion reduction e acessibilidade de formularios, componentes e fluxos.

Quality

56%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

Pending

No eval scenarios have been run

Securityby

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/22-accessibility-specialist/SKILL.md

Quality

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 solid skill description that clearly identifies its niche (digital accessibility) and provides explicit 'Use when' guidance with relevant trigger terms. Its main weakness is that it describes the domain areas to review rather than listing specific concrete actions it can perform (e.g., auditing, fixing, generating reports). The trigger term coverage is strong and the distinctiveness is excellent.

Suggestions

Replace the general 'revisar' with specific concrete actions like 'auditar conformidade WCAG', 'gerar relatórios de acessibilidade', 'corrigir atributos ARIA', 'validar navegação por teclado' to improve specificity.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain (digital accessibility) and lists several areas like WCAG, keyboard, screen reader, contrast, semantics, motion reduction, and form/component/flow accessibility, but it doesn't describe concrete actions (e.g., 'audit contrast ratios', 'generate ARIA attributes', 'fix keyboard navigation'). It says 'revisar' (review) but remains at a high level.	2 / 3
Completeness	The description explicitly answers both 'what' (digital accessibility review covering WCAG, keyboard, screen reader, contrast, semantics, motion reduction, forms, components, and flows) and 'when' with an explicit 'Use quando precisar revisar...' clause that lists trigger scenarios.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes strong natural trigger terms that users would actually say: 'WCAG', 'teclado' (keyboard), 'screen reader', 'contraste', 'semantica', 'motion reduction', 'acessibilidade', 'formularios', 'componentes'. These cover a good range of accessibility-related keywords users would naturally use.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Digital accessibility is a clear, well-defined niche. The specific trigger terms like WCAG, screen reader, contrast, motion reduction, and semantic HTML make it highly unlikely to conflict with other skills. This would only trigger for accessibility-related requests.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Implementation

22%

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

This skill reads more like a role description or process document than an actionable skill. It tells Claude what an accessibility specialist does but never teaches how to actually perform accessibility reviews—no specific WCAG criteria, no testing commands or tools, no code examples for ARIA patterns, and no concrete workflow. The content would need substantial enrichment with executable guidance to be useful.

Suggestions

Add specific WCAG success criteria (e.g., 1.4.3 for contrast ratio ≥ 4.5:1, 2.1.1 for keyboard accessibility) with concrete testing steps or code snippets for each checklist item.

Include executable examples: axe-core commands, specific ARIA patterns to check for, contrast calculation methods, and keyboard trap detection techniques.

Define a sequenced workflow: e.g., 1) Run automated scan with specific tool → 2) Manual keyboard walkthrough → 3) Screen reader test → 4) Document findings with severity → 5) Validate fixes.

Replace the abstract checklist with actionable items that specify what to look for and how to verify (e.g., 'Tab through all interactive elements; verify focus indicator meets 3:1 contrast ratio per WCAG 2.4.13').

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The skill is relatively brief but includes several sections that are organizational boilerplate rather than actionable content (e.g., 'Quando Usar', 'Quando Nao Usar', 'Entradas Esperadas', 'Saidas Esperadas'). These meta-sections describe the skill's role rather than teaching Claude how to perform accessibility reviews.	2 / 3
Actionability	The content is entirely abstract and descriptive—there are no concrete commands, code examples, WCAG criteria numbers, specific contrast ratios, testing tools, or executable steps. The checklist items are vague (e.g., 'semantica e roles coerentes') without specifying what to check or how.	1 / 3
Workflow Clarity	There is no sequenced workflow for performing an accessibility review. The checklist is a flat list of concerns without ordering, validation steps, or feedback loops. There's no guidance on how to actually test keyboard navigation, screen reader compatibility, or contrast.	1 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The skill references external files (GLOBAL.md, policies/, templates/accessibility-check.md) which suggests some progressive disclosure structure. However, the main content itself lacks substance to serve as a useful overview, and the references are governance-oriented rather than pointing to detailed accessibility guidance.	2 / 3
	Total	6 / 12 Passed

Validation

100%

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 — 11 / 11 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: felvieira/claude-skills-fv
Commit: e9f6648

Reviewed: 1 day 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.