design-accessibility
WCAG AA and ARIA best practices — screen readers, keyboard navigation, focus management. Use when building any user-facing interface or reviewing accessibility compliance.
75
63%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
95%
0.98xAverage score across 3 eval scenarios
Passed
No known issues
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./skills/design/design-accessibility/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 solid skill description with excellent trigger terms and clear 'when to use' guidance. The main weakness is that it describes the domain and concepts rather than specific actions Claude can perform (e.g., 'audit for violations', 'add ARIA labels', 'fix keyboard traps'). The accessibility focus makes it highly distinctive.
Suggestions
Add concrete action verbs describing what Claude does: 'Audits interfaces for WCAG AA violations, implements ARIA labels, fixes keyboard navigation issues and focus traps.'
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | Names the domain (accessibility/WCAG) and lists some specific areas (screen readers, keyboard navigation, focus management), but doesn't describe concrete actions like 'audit', 'fix', 'implement', or 'generate reports'. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both what (WCAG AA and ARIA best practices for screen readers, keyboard navigation, focus management) and when (building user-facing interfaces or reviewing accessibility compliance) with explicit 'Use when' clause. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural keywords users would say: 'WCAG', 'AA', 'ARIA', 'screen readers', 'keyboard navigation', 'focus management', 'accessibility', 'compliance' - good coverage of terms developers use when discussing accessibility. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Clear niche focused specifically on accessibility standards (WCAG AA, ARIA) with distinct triggers; unlikely to conflict with general UI/UX or coding skills due to specific accessibility terminology. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
37%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The skill has a solid foundation with concise, actionable principles for WCAG AA compliance, but is diluted by generic boilerplate sections (troubleshooting, trigger examples) that don't add accessibility-specific value. The workflow lacks concrete audit steps and validation checkpoints that would make it truly actionable for accessibility reviews.
Suggestions
Replace the generic 3-step workflow with specific accessibility audit steps: check heading hierarchy, test keyboard navigation, verify ARIA labels, run contrast checks, with explicit validation at each step
Add executable code examples for common accessibility patterns (e.g., accessible modal, skip link, form with proper labels)
Remove or significantly condense the generic troubleshooting and trigger example sections, which don't provide accessibility-specific guidance
Include specific tools or commands for accessibility validation (e.g., axe-core, lighthouse accessibility audit)
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The principles section is lean and efficient, but the boilerplate troubleshooting and examples sections add unnecessary bulk. The trigger examples and troubleshooting patterns are generic templates that don't add accessibility-specific value. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The principles provide concrete guidance (4.5:1 contrast ratio, semantic HTML rules), but lack executable code examples. The workflow is abstract ('apply the skill rules') rather than providing specific audit steps or code patterns for accessibility testing. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 3-step workflow is vague and generic ('Apply the skill rules', 'Validate output quality'). For accessibility auditing, there should be specific steps like checking heading hierarchy, testing keyboard navigation, or running contrast checks with validation checkpoints. | 1 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | References the rules index appropriately with a one-level-deep link, but the skill itself contains boilerplate sections (troubleshooting, examples) that could be omitted or moved. The structure exists but content organization is suboptimal. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 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 |
|---|---|---|
metadata_field | 'metadata' should map string keys to string values | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- ravnhq/ai-toolkit
- Commit
7b466be
- 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.