Accessibility Audit skill

Accessibility Audit Skill

This skill produces a structured accessibility audit based on WCAG 2.2 guidelines. It covers visual, motor, cognitive, and screen reader accessibility — with prioritised remediation for each issue found.

Required Inputs

Work from what is given. If any of these is missing, still produce the complete output: fill each gap with a reasonable assumption marked (assumed, confirm) and list those assumptions at the end. Ask a question first only when the core subject itself is missing (there is nothing to write about).

• What is being audited (screen, component, full product, design spec)
• Description or image of the UI
• Target WCAG level (A / AA / AAA — default to AA, which is the legal standard in most jurisdictions)
• Known assistive technology users? (Yes/No — if yes, which: screen reader / switch access / voice control / magnification)
• Platform (Web / iOS / Android / Desktop app)

Programmatic Helper

Contrast ratios cannot be eyeballed. The AA line sits at 4.5:1, and #777777 on white is 4.478 (fails) while #767676 is 4.54 (passes) — no amount of looking at a screenshot separates those. Compute them:

npx --yes notugly fix "#8ab4f8" "#ffffff"     # ratio, APCA, and the nearest passing colour
npx --yes notugly onepager <url> --out review.html   # every pairing, printable
npx --yes notugly vision                      # which colours merge for colour-blind viewers

notugly fix returns the ratio, the APCA lightness contrast, and the closest colour to the one already chosen that passes — same hue, same chroma. Paste those numbers into the tables below rather than estimating them.

Deterministic, zero dependencies, and no model call — so it costs nothing to run and gives the same answer every time.

For 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) and 1.4.11 Non-text Contrast, every row in the remediation table should carry a measured ratio, not an assessment. If the user supplied a screenshot rather than hex values, say so explicitly in the audit — an inferred ratio is not an audit finding.

Output Structure

---

Accessibility Audit: [Component or Screen Name]

Target standard: WCAG 2.2 Level [AA] Platform: [Platform] Date: [Date]

---

Audit Summary

Category	Issues Found	Critical	Moderate	Minor
Perceivable
Operable
Understandable
Robust
Total

Overall compliance status: ✅ Compliant / 🟡 Minor issues / 🔴 Fails AA standard

---

Perceivable

1.1 Text Alternatives

• All images have descriptive alt text (not filename or "image")
• Decorative images have alt="" to be skipped by screen readers
• Icons without visible labels have accessible names
• Complex images (charts, diagrams) have extended descriptions

Issues found: [List specific issues or "None"]

1.3 Adaptable

• Content structure uses semantic HTML (headings, lists, landmarks) — not just visual formatting
• Reading order in DOM matches visual order
• Form inputs have associated labels (not placeholder text as label)
• Data tables have proper headers and scope

Issues found:

1.4 Distinguishable

• Text contrast ratio ≥ 4.5:1 (normal text) or ≥ 3:1 (large text 18px+)
• UI component contrast ratio ≥ 3:1 against background
• Information is not conveyed by colour alone
• Text can be resized to 200% without loss of content
• No content that auto-plays audio

Issues found:

---

Operable

2.1 Keyboard Accessible

• All interactive elements are reachable by keyboard (Tab key)
• No keyboard traps
• Custom components have keyboard interactions (arrow keys for menus, Escape to close modals)
• Skip navigation link available for pages with repeated navigation

Issues found:

2.4 Navigable

• Focus is visible at all times (not removed with outline: none without replacement)
• Focus order is logical and predictable
• Page/screen has a descriptive title
• Link text is descriptive (not "click here" or "read more")
• Headings are hierarchical (H1 → H2 → H3, no skips)

Issues found:

2.5 Input Modalities

• Touch targets are at least 44x44px
• No functionality requires complex gestures (pinch, multi-touch) without a simple alternative
• Motion or dragging interactions have button alternatives

Issues found:

---

Understandable

3.1 Readable

• Language of the page is set (lang attribute)
• Unusual words, abbreviations, or jargon are explained

3.2 Predictable

• Navigation is consistent across screens
• Components behave consistently (same button does the same thing)
• No unexpected context changes on focus or input

3.3 Input Assistance

• Error messages identify the field and describe the error in plain language (not just "Invalid input")
• Required fields are labelled (not just with colour or asterisk alone)
• Forms provide suggestions for correcting errors where possible

Issues found:

---

Robust

4.1 Compatible

• HTML is valid and well-structured
• ARIA roles and attributes are used correctly (not to fix broken semantics)
• Status messages (success, error, loading) are announced to screen readers without focus change

Issues found:

---

Prioritised Remediation List

Priority	Issue	WCAG Criterion	Fix	Effort
🔴 Critical	[Issue]	[e.g. 1.4.3 Contrast]	[Specific fix]	[Low/Med/High]
🟡 Moderate	[Issue]
🟢 Minor	[Issue]

Priority definitions:

• 🔴 Critical: Blocks access for users with disabilities. Legal risk. Fix before launch.
• 🟡 Moderate: Significant friction. Fix in next sprint.
• 🟢 Minor: Best practice. Address in roadmap.

---

Quick Wins (Fix in < 1 hour)

[List any issues that are trivially fixable — e.g. adding alt text, fixing contrast with a colour swap, adding a lang attribute. These are easy to ship immediately.]

---

Testing Recommendations

• Manual keyboard test: Tab through the entire flow. Can you complete every task without a mouse?
• Screen reader test: VoiceOver (Mac/iOS), NVDA or JAWS (Windows). Is every piece of content and every action accessible?
• Colour contrast check: Use Stark (Figma plugin) or WebAIM Contrast Checker
• Automated scan: Axe DevTools or Lighthouse accessibility audit (catches ~30% of issues automatically)

---

Quality Checks

• Issues are mapped to specific WCAG criteria
• Every critical issue has a specific fix recommendation
• Quick wins are separated from larger fixes
• Effort estimates are included for prioritisation
• Testing recommendations are included

Anti-Patterns

• Do not rely solely on automated scanning tools — automated checks catch ~30% of issues; manual keyboard and screen reader testing is required
• Do not label an issue "minor" simply because it only affects a small percentage of users — for those users it may block all access
• Do not add ARIA roles to fix broken semantics — use correct semantic HTML first; ARIA is a last resort
• Do not confuse colour contrast of text with colour contrast of UI components — they have different minimum ratios (4.5:1 vs 3:1)
• Do not audit only the happy path — error states, empty states, and loading states must also meet accessibility requirements

Example Trigger Phrases

• "Audit this design for accessibility"
• "Check WCAG compliance for [screen/component]"
• "Give me an a11y audit of [UI description]"
• "What accessibility issues does this design have?"

Run this skill in your browser: https://mohitagw15856.github.io/pm-claude-skills/skill/accessibility-audit.html