MCP HubMCP Hub
← 返回技能列表

accessibility-audit

rampstackco
更新于 2 days ago
7 次查看
254
28
254
在 GitHub 上查看
开发testingdesign

关于

This skill performs comprehensive WCAG accessibility audits to identify compliance issues and generate remediation plans. It systematically checks perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust principles across your site or application. Developers should use it when needing to fix accessibility problems, prepare for certification, or mitigate legal risks.

快速安装

Claude Code

推荐
主要方式
npx skills add rampstackco/claude-skills -a claude-code
插件命令备选方式
/plugin add https://github.com/rampstackco/claude-skills
Git 克隆备选方式
git clone https://github.com/rampstackco/claude-skills.git ~/.claude/skills/accessibility-audit

在 Claude Code 中复制并粘贴此命令以安装该技能

技能文档

Accessibility Audit

Run a thorough accessibility audit and produce a remediation plan. Stack-agnostic. Anchored to WCAG 2.1 AA, with notes on AAA where relevant.

This skill goes deeper than the accessibility checks in qa-testing and design-standards. Use this when accessibility itself is the goal.

When to use

  • Pre-launch accessibility verification
  • Compliance preparation (ADA, EN 301 549, AODA, Section 508)
  • Remediation after an audit finding or complaint
  • Annual or quarterly accessibility health check
  • Onboarding accessibility into a team that hasn't prioritized it before

When NOT to use

  • General QA after deploys (use qa-testing)
  • Component-level accessibility implementation (use frontend-component-build)
  • Color contrast for design tokens (use design-standards or brand-identity)

Required inputs

  • The site or product under audit
  • The scope (full site, specific section, specific user flow)
  • The target standard (WCAG 2.1 AA is most common)
  • Any specific concerns or known issues
  • Tools available (automated scanners, screen readers, manual testing)

The framework: WCAG's 4 principles

WCAG organizes accessibility around four principles. The audit covers each in depth.

1. Perceivable

Information and UI must be presentable in ways users can perceive.

Audit checks:

  • Text alternatives. All non-decorative images have descriptive alt text. Decorative images use alt="". Complex images (charts, infographics) have long descriptions.
  • Time-based media. Videos have captions. Pre-recorded audio has transcripts. Live audio has live captions where required.
  • Adaptable. Content structure is conveyed through markup (semantic HTML), not just visual styling. Reading order makes sense when CSS is disabled.
  • Distinguishable. Color is not the sole means of conveying information. Text contrast meets AA (4.5:1 normal, 3:1 large). UI element contrast meets 3:1. Audio can be paused, stopped, or muted.

2. Operable

UI components and navigation must be operable.

Audit checks:

  • Keyboard accessible. All functionality available via keyboard alone. No keyboard traps. Focus visible.
  • Enough time. Time limits can be adjusted, paused, or extended. Auto-updating content can be paused.
  • Seizures and physical reactions. No content that flashes more than 3 times per second.
  • Navigable. Skip links present. Pages have descriptive titles. Focus order is logical. Link purpose clear from text or context. Multiple ways to find pages (sitemap, search, navigation). Headings and labels are descriptive.
  • Input modalities. Pointer gestures have keyboard alternatives. Pointer cancellation supported (mouse-up, not mouse-down for activation). Labels match accessible names. Motion-triggered functionality has alternatives.

3. Understandable

Information and operation must be understandable.

Audit checks:

  • Readable. Page language declared (<html lang="...">). Unusual words and abbreviations have definitions or expansions. Reading level appropriate to audience.
  • Predictable. Focus does not change context unexpectedly. Input does not change context unexpectedly. Navigation is consistent across pages. Components that look similar behave similarly.
  • Input assistance. Errors are identified clearly. Labels and instructions are provided for input. Error suggestions are given where possible. For pages handling legal commitments or financial transactions, errors can be reviewed and corrected before submission.

4. Robust

Content must be robust enough to work with current and future user agents.

Audit checks:

  • Compatible. Markup is valid. Name, role, and value of UI components are programmatically determinable. Status messages can be programmatically determined and announced.

Audit methodology

Stage 1: Automated scan

Run automated scanners across the priority pages. These catch 30 to 50 percent of issues but miss the rest.

Tools:

  • axe DevTools (browser extension)
  • Lighthouse (Chrome DevTools accessibility audit)
  • WAVE (browser extension)
  • Pa11y (CLI for batch scanning)

Output: A list of automated findings, by page.

Stage 2: Manual keyboard testing

Unplug the mouse. Navigate the priority user flows using only keyboard.

Test:

  • Tab and Shift+Tab move through interactive elements in logical order
  • Enter activates buttons and links
  • Space activates buttons (and toggles checkboxes)
  • Arrow keys navigate within composite widgets (tabs, menus, listboxes)
  • Escape dismisses modals, popovers, menus
  • Focus is always visible
  • Focus returns to a sensible place after modals or popovers close
  • No keyboard trap (focus can always leave)

Document: Any flow where keyboard navigation breaks down.

Stage 3: Screen reader testing

Test with at least one real screen reader. Each combination has quirks.

Common combinations:

  • VoiceOver + Safari (macOS / iOS)
  • NVDA + Firefox or Chrome (Windows)
  • JAWS + Chrome (Windows; commercial but common in enterprise)
  • TalkBack + Chrome (Android)

Test:

  • Page structure announced correctly (headings, landmarks)
  • Form labels read with their inputs
  • Errors announced when they appear
  • Status changes announced (loading, success, error)
  • Modal context announced when opened
  • Images have meaningful alt text (or are correctly identified as decorative)

Stage 4: Visual testing

Verify the visual aspects of accessibility.

Test:

  • Color contrast for all text/background pairs (use a contrast checker)
  • UI element contrast (3:1 for icons, borders, focus rings)
  • Color-blindness simulation (deuteranopia at minimum)
  • Zoom to 200% - content remains usable, no horizontal scroll
  • Reflow at 320px viewport
  • Text spacing applied (line height, letter spacing) - no content cut off
  • Motion can be reduced (prefers-reduced-motion honored)

Stage 5: Cognitive accessibility

Often overlooked. Critical for inclusive products.

Test:

  • Reading level appropriate
  • Instructions clear
  • Error messages explain how to fix the error, not just that one occurred
  • Forms allow correction before submission
  • Time limits avoidable or extendable
  • Important content not dependent on memory of prior pages

Workflow

  1. Define scope. Full site? Specific flows? Specific page templates?
  2. Run automated scans. Document findings per page.
  3. Manual keyboard pass. Test all priority flows.
  4. Screen reader pass. Test with at least one combination.
  5. Visual checks. Contrast, zoom, color blindness, motion.
  6. Cognitive checks. Reading level, error handling, time limits.
  7. Score against WCAG. Per success criterion (level A, AA, AAA).
  8. Prioritize findings. Critical (blocks users), Important (degrades experience), Minor (polish).
  9. Write the report. Use the template in references/audit-report-template.md.
  10. Build a remediation plan. Sequenced fixes with effort and impact estimates.

Severity classification

For prioritization:

Critical (P0):

  • Blocks an entire user flow for an assistive-tech user
  • Renders a key page completely inaccessible
  • Examples: form with no labels, modal without focus management, primary CTA not keyboard-accessible

Important (P1):

  • Significantly degrades the experience for assistive-tech users
  • Examples: missing alt text on key images, low-contrast body text, error messages that don't announce

Minor (P2):

  • Affects edge cases or specific assistive technology combinations
  • Examples: minor focus order issues, missing decorative alt attributes, edge case keyboard handling

Polish (P3):

  • Above-AA improvements that benefit accessibility but aren't compliance-blocking
  • Examples: AAA contrast targets, additional reduced-motion variants, language attributes on inline foreign words

Failure patterns

  • Automated scan only. Catches 30 to 50 percent of issues. The remaining 50 to 70 percent are in keyboard, screen reader, and cognitive testing.
  • Testing only on the home page. The home page is usually the most accessible. Bugs hide in deeper flows.
  • Treating accessibility as a one-time project. Accessibility erodes with every deploy. Bake it into the development cycle.
  • Fixing without root cause. Patching individual issues without understanding why they happened means new ones keep appearing.
  • Ignoring screen reader testing. Hard to do well, easy to skip. Single biggest source of "we thought we were accessible" surprises.
  • Confusing AA and AAA. AAA is rarely the right target. AA is the practical baseline for most products.
  • Treating accessibility as a designer or developer responsibility alone. Content, product, QA, and leadership all need to participate.
  • Assuming compliance equals accessibility. WCAG conformance is a floor, not a ceiling. Real users may still struggle.

Output format

Default output is a comprehensive audit report at accessibility-audit.md.

Structure:

  1. Executive summary
  2. Methodology (tools used, pages tested, screen readers used)
  3. Findings by WCAG principle
  4. Critical findings (P0) with specific URLs and fixes
  5. Important findings (P1)
  6. Minor findings (P2)
  7. Polish (P3)
  8. Remediation roadmap (sequenced and prioritized)
  9. Appendices (full automated scan results, keyboard navigation notes, screen reader notes)

Plus a remediation tracking spreadsheet with one row per finding.

Reference files

GitHub 仓库

rampstackco/claude-skills
路径: skills/accessibility-audit
0
agent-skillsai-agentsanthropicclaudeclaude-aiclaude-code

相关推荐技能

sparc-methodology

开发

SPARC是一个系统化的多智能体开发框架，提供从需求分析到部署监控的17种专项模式。它通过规范、伪代码、架构、精化和完成五个阶段，结合TDD工作流指导完整软件开发流程。开发者可调用特定模式（如`/sparc-spec`或`/sparc-arch`）来获得针对当前开发阶段的智能体协同支持。

查看技能

sparc-methodology

开发

SPARC Methodology 是一个系统化的多智能体开发框架，提供从需求分析到部署监控的17种专项模式。它通过规范、伪代码、架构、优化和完成的五阶段流程，帮助开发者构建高质量软件。该技能特别适合需要结构化开发流程和团队协作的复杂项目，支持测试驱动开发与智能体协同工作。

查看技能

sparc-methodology

开发

SPARC Methodology 是一个集成多智能体编排的综合性开发框架，提供从需求规范到代码完成的17种专业模式。它特别适合需要系统化开发流程的团队，支持测试驱动开发、架构设计和代码重构等关键环节。开发者可以通过简单的指令激活不同模式，将复杂的软件工程任务分解为可管理的标准化步骤。

查看技能

rust-desktop-applications

开发

这个Skill帮助开发者使用Rust构建跨平台桌面应用，重点介绍了Tauri框架和原生GUI方案。它适用于需要系统集成、小体积包或高性能的桌面应用开发。Skill提供了从项目搭建到测试部署的完整指导，包括架构模式、状态管理和平台集成等关键主题。

查看技能