Tessl • The management layer for AI agent skills

SkillPublic

accessibility-testing

Use when reviewing component libraries, page flows, or CI pipelines that need repeatable accessibility checks. Automated testing is strongest at catching structural and attribute-level issues; it does not replace keyboard, screen reader, and manual UX testing.

Quality

73%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/accessibility-testing/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

65%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

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

A tidy overview with excellent progressive disclosure into a real, self-contained reference file. The body itself falls short on actionability and workflow clarity: no executable snippets and the Check/Fix/Explain sections are generic directives without sequencing or verification steps.

Suggestions

Inline one minimal executable snippet (e.g. a jest-axe `expect.extend(toHaveNoViolations)` example) so the body is actionable without opening the reference.

Turn Check/Fix/Explain into a sequenced workflow with a verification step, e.g. 'Add tests → run the suite → confirm zero unexpected axe violations before merging'.

Delete the opening 30-50% rationale sentence, which duplicates 'Why It Matters' in references/rule.md.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and sectioned with each token mostly earning its place, but the opening rationale ('Automated accessibility testing catches 30-50% of WCAG violations—reducing legal risk and improving usability for everyone') is background duplicated from the reference file and could be trimmed.	4 / 5
Actionability	Concrete tool names appear (jest-axe, @axe-core/playwright, cypress-axe, the color-contrast rule) and a real pointer to reference code exists, but the body itself contains no code, commands, or specific steps — 'Test specific WCAG rules like color-contrast individually' is a high-level hint without the how, matching the anchor for some concrete guidance that is incomplete.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections loosely suggest a flow but are not sequenced into a process and include no validation checkpoints (e.g. how to verify zero new violations or confirm CI gates the build), fitting the anchor for steps listed with checkpoints missing.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The short, well-organized body defers implementation detail via a clearly signaled one-level-deep pointer — 'For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see references/rule.md' — and the referenced file exists and is self-contained with no nested references, matching the anchor for a clear overview with well-signaled references.	5 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

70%Weight 40%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.

A solid description with an explicit trigger clause, clear niche, and honest capability boundaries. Its main weaknesses are an implied rather than explicit statement of what the skill does and missing common trigger synonyms like 'a11y', 'WCAG', and 'axe'.

Suggestions

State the 'what' explicitly with concrete actions, e.g. 'Runs automated accessibility checks with axe-core, jest-axe, and cypress-axe and adds them to CI pipelines'.

Add common trigger synonyms users naturally say — 'a11y', 'WCAG', 'axe', 'accessibility audit' — to the 'Use when' clause.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain ('accessibility checks') and scopes ('component libraries, page flows, or CI pipelines') plus what automated testing catches ('structural and attribute-level issues'), but lists no concrete actions such as running axe-based tests or adding CI checks, matching the anchor for domain plus 1-2 actions rather than a list of several specific actions.	3 / 5
Completeness	It has an explicit 'Use when...' clause with concrete triggers, but the 'what' is only implied by 'need repeatable accessibility checks' rather than stated as explicit actions the skill performs, fitting the anchor where both are present yet the what could be more explicit.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural terms like 'component libraries', 'CI pipelines', 'accessibility checks', 'keyboard', and 'screen reader' give good coverage, but common synonyms users actually say — 'a11y', 'WCAG', 'axe' — are missing, so it stops short of comprehensive synonym coverage.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Accessibility testing is a clear niche unlikely to trigger the wrong skill, but the broad opening scopes ('component libraries, page flows, or CI pipelines') create minor overlap risk with general frontend-testing or CI skills rather than minimal conflict.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

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 — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

Criteria	Description	Result
metadata_version	'metadata.version' is missing	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: thedaviddias/Front-End-Checklist
Path: skills/accessibility-testing/SKILL.md
Revision: e8d14d0

Reviewed: 15 days ago

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.

accessibility-testing

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?