CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo
PluginPublic

testland/wcag-compliance-reporter

Use after an accessibility scan across many pages (pa11y-ci, axe over a sitemap, Lighthouse batch) when the team needs a shareable conformance report. Groups violations by WCAG 2.2 success criterion and level, flags pages that were not scanned and writes a summary plus per-page detail.

Quality

88%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide
SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Quality

Content

78%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 well-structured, largely executable skill for a genuinely multi-step aggregation pipeline, with excellent reference-file separation and strong workflow sequencing. The main weaknesses are repetitive restatement of the same two facts (30% coverage, the conformance quote), an under-specified conformance() implementation with undefined helpers, and dedup guidance buried in the anti-patterns table.

Suggestions

State the '~30% of SCs are tool-detectable' fact and the 'no exceptions' conformance quote once (e.g. in Overview) and reference them from Step 3, Step 5, Anti-patterns, and Limitations instead of restating each four times.

Promote deduplication by (page, SC, selector) from an Anti-patterns row into a numbered step (between Step 2 Aggregate and Step 3 Conformance verdict), since it is required whenever 2+ tools scan the same page.

Fix the conformance() snippet so the docstring matches the tuple return, define level_set inline (it is only explained in prose), and point to where the SC_BY_LEVEL ground-truth list lives — currently the verdict logic depends on data no bundle file provides.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is dense and workmanlike — no tutorial-style explanation of what WCAG or a scanner is — but it restates the same facts repeatedly: the '~30% of SCs are tool-detectable' claim appears in Step 3, Step 5, two Anti-patterns rows, and Limitations, and the 'no exceptions' conformance quote is blockquoted or repeated four times. That is trimming rather than restructuring, so it sits above anchor 3 but below the every-token-earns-its-place anchor 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

Mostly executable guidance: a complete TypeScript Violation interface, a runnable aggregate() function, a pages-to-scan.yaml example, a verdict table, and executable normalize_axe/CI templates in references. Minor gaps keep it below anchor 5 — conformance() returns a tuple while its docstring says it returns a string, helpers SC_BY_LEVEL and level_set are named but never defined, and the 77-SC ground-truth list the logic depends on is nowhere in the bundle.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The six-step 'How to use' sequence is explicit and maps each step to its section, and the 'unknown' verdict check plus the pages-to-scan.yaml coverage comparison act as validation checkpoints — but this is a read-only reporting skill, so the destructive/batch cap doesn't apply. It misses anchor 5 because there are no error-recovery loops (e.g. what to do when sc-mapping.json misses a rule ID) and the multi-tool dedup step is relegated to an Anti-patterns row instead of being a workflow step.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

Textbook structure: the body keeps the overview and core logic while three one-level-deep references (tool-normalizers.md, sample-report-format.md, machine-output-and-ci.md — all verified present) each open with 'Deep reference for... Consult when X; SKILL.md Step N keeps only Y', and every inline reference link resolves to a real file. This matches anchor 5's clear-overview pattern; the only nit is that reference code comments name scripts/ files that don't exist in the bundle, which does not impair navigation.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

92%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 strong description that explicitly states what the skill does and when to use it, with named tools and a precise niche. The only weakness is missing a few natural synonym trigger terms (a11y, audit, compliance) that users might say.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists three concrete, domain-specific actions — 'Groups violations by WCAG 2.2 success criterion and level', 'flags pages that were not scanned', 'writes a summary plus per-page detail' — matching the comprehensive multi-action anchor rather than anchor 4, which is reserved for descriptions with noticeable coverage gaps.

5 / 5

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: the 'what' is 'Groups violations by WCAG 2.2 success criterion and level, flags pages... writes a summary plus per-page detail' and the 'when' is 'Use after an accessibility scan across many pages... when the team needs a shareable conformance report' — concrete trigger phrases matching anchor 5 exactly, and clearly above anchor 4 where the 'when' is only loosely specified.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Strong natural keywords ('accessibility scan', 'WCAG 2.2', 'conformance report', 'pa11y-ci', 'axe', 'Lighthouse batch') but common synonyms like 'a11y', 'accessibility audit', or 'compliance report' are absent, so it falls just short of the comprehensive-synonyms anchor 5 without being as thin as anchor 3's 'some relevant keywords'.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche — post-scan WCAG 2.2 conformance report aggregation across pa11y-ci/axe/Lighthouse — that no generic skill would claim; a scanning skill (running axe) or a VPAT author would not collide with these triggers, matching anchor 5's 'clear niche with distinct triggers'.

5 / 5

Total

19

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

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

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Reviewed

On this page