Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索只读github未标认证来源可访问clear审计未展示

accessibility-auditor无障碍审核员

Agent Skill

用于辅助无障碍访问检查、页面可用性审计和前端可访问性改进。它适合让 Agent 检查语义标签、键盘操作、颜色对比、ARIA 属性和自动化检测结果。使用时需要结合真实页面和浏览器验证,不应只依赖静态文本判断;涉及修复建议时,应兼顾设计系统、组件复用和 WCAG 等通用无障碍规范。

总安装

539

周安装

22

GitHub Stars

公开资料未说明

下载量

172
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

MIT

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:accessibility-auditor(无障碍审核员)
来源仓库:https://github.com/srstomp/pokayokay
仓库路径:skills/accessibility-auditor
安装命令:
npx skills add srstomp/pokayokay --skill "accessibility-auditor"
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

AgentSkills.tonpx skills
npx skills add srstomp/pokayokay --skill "accessibility-auditor"

简介

accessibility-auditor 用于网页无障碍检测,检查语义标签、键盘导航和色彩对比度是否符合 WCAG 标准。

  • 它生成详细审计报告,帮助开发者定位可访问性问题并提供修复建议。
  • 安装命令:npx skills add srstomp/pokayokay --skill "accessibility-auditor",需传入目标 URL 或 HTML 内容。
  • 检测结果需结合真实用户测试验证,不能仅依赖自动化工具判断。
  • 修复方案应兼顾设计规范与组件复用,避免为达标而牺牲可用性。

SKILL.md

name
accessibility-auditor
description
Analyzes web and mobile applications for WCAG 2.2 AA accessibility compliance. Audits code (HTML, React, React Native, SwiftUI), interprets automated tool output, and processes manual tester findings. Produces structured audit reports that implementation agents can action. Use this skill when conducting accessibility audits, reviewing code for a11y issues, or synthesizing accessibility test results.

Accessibility Auditor

Analyze applications for WCAG 2.2 AA compliance and produce actionable audit reports.

Audit Workflow

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                        INPUTS                               │
├─────────────────┬─────────────────┬─────────────────────────┤
│ Code            │ Tool Output     │ Tester Findings         │
│ (HTML, React,   │ (axe, Light-    │ (manual testing         │
│ RN, SwiftUI)    │ house, etc.)    │ reports)                │
└────────┬────────┴────────┬────────┴────────┬────────────────┘
         │                 │                 │
         └─────────────────┼─────────────────┘
                           ▼
              ┌────────────────────────┐
              │   ANALYSIS PROCESS     │
              │  • Map to WCAG 2.2 AA  │
              │  • Classify severity   │
              │  • Identify patterns   │
              │  • Note remediation    │
              └───────────┬────────────┘
                          ▼
              ┌────────────────────────┐
              │     AUDIT REPORT       │
              │  Structured for        │
              │  implementation agent  │
              └────────────────────────┘

WCAG 2.2 AA Quick Reference

The Four Principles (POUR)

PrincipleMeaningKey Questions
PerceivableUsers can perceive contentCan everyone see/hear/read it?
OperableUsers can interactCan everyone navigate and use controls?
UnderstandableUsers can comprehendIs content and UI predictable and clear?
RobustWorks with assistive techDoes it work with screen readers, etc.?

Compliance Levels

  • A: Minimum (basic access)
  • AA: Standard (legal requirement in most jurisdictions) ← Target
  • AAA: Enhanced (not typically required)

Severity Classification

Use this scale for all findings:

SeverityDefinitionExamplePriority
CriticalBlocks access entirelyNo keyboard navigation, missing alt text on key imagesP0 — Fix immediately
SeriousMajor barrier, workaround difficultPoor contrast, form errors not announcedP1 — Fix before release
ModerateBarrier exists, workaround possibleFocus order confusing, missing skip linksP2 — Fix soon
MinorInconvenience, not a barrierRedundant alt text, minor heading hierarchy issuesP3 — Fix when able

Severity Decision Tree

Can the user complete the task?
├── No → Is there a workaround?
│        ├── No → CRITICAL
│        └── Yes, but difficult → SERIOUS
└── Yes → Is the experience degraded?
          ├── Significantly → MODERATE
          └── Slightly → MINOR

Audit Report Template

Use this structure for all audit reports:

# Accessibility Audit Report

## Summary
| Metric | Count |
|--------|-------|
| Critical | X |
| Serious | X |
| Moderate | X |
| Minor | X |
| **Total Issues** | X |

**Overall Assessment**: [Pass / Fail / Conditional Pass]
**WCAG Version**: 2.2 AA
**Platform**: [Web / iOS / Android / React Native]
**Audit Date**: [Date]
**Auditor**: [Agent/Human]

## Critical Issues

### [Issue ID]: [Brief Title]
- **WCAG Criterion**: [X.X.X Name]
- **Severity**: Critical
- **Location**: [File/Component/Screen]
- **Description**: [What's wrong]
- **Impact**: [Who is affected and how]
- **Code Sample** (if applicable):

[Problematic code]

- **Remediation**: [How to fix]
- **Remediation Code** (if applicable):

[Fixed code]


[Repeat for each critical issue]

## Serious Issues
[Same structure]

## Moderate Issues
[Same structure]

## Minor Issues
[Same structure]

## Passed Criteria
[List WCAG criteria that were checked and passed]

## Out of Scope
[Anything not tested and why]

## Recommendations
[Overall recommendations beyond specific fixes]

## Testing Methodology
- **Automated Tools**: [List tools used]
- **Manual Testing**: [Describe manual checks]
- **Assistive Tech Tested**: [Screen readers, etc.]

Analysis Process

Step 1: Identify Input Type

InputAnalysis Approach
CodeStatic analysis against WCAG criteria
Automated tool outputMap findings to WCAG, verify, remove false positives
Tester findingsStandardize format, map to WCAG, classify severity
MixedSynthesize all sources, deduplicate

Step 2: Map to WCAG 2.2 AA

Every finding must map to a specific WCAG criterion:

If a finding doesn't map to WCAG AA, classify as:

  • Best Practice (not WCAG, but recommended)
  • AAA (beyond AA requirement)
  • Platform-Specific (HIG, Material guidelines)

Step 3: Classify Severity

Use the severity definitions above. Be consistent:

  • Same issue type = same severity across report
  • Document reasoning for edge cases

Step 4: Identify Patterns

Look for systemic issues:

  • Same problem across multiple components
  • Root cause analysis (e.g., missing design system support)
  • Note in recommendations section

Step 5: Specify Remediation

Every issue needs actionable remediation:

  • Specific enough for implementation agent to execute
  • Include code samples when analyzing code
  • Reference platform-specific solutions

Code Analysis Checklist

Quick checklist for code review. Details in references/code-analysis.md.

HTML/React/Web

  • [ ] Images have meaningful alt text (or empty for decorative)
  • [ ] Form inputs have associated labels
  • [ ] Heading hierarchy is logical (h1 → h2 → h3)
  • [ ] Color contrast meets 4.5:1 (text) / 3:1 (large text, UI)
  • [ ] Focus is visible and logical
  • [ ] Interactive elements are keyboard accessible
  • [ ] ARIA used correctly (or native HTML preferred)
  • [ ] Skip link present
  • [ ] Language declared
  • [ ] Error messages associated with inputs

React Native

  • [ ] accessibilityLabel on touchables/images
  • [ ] accessibilityRole set correctly
  • [ ] accessibilityHint for non-obvious actions
  • [ ] accessibilityState for toggles/selections
  • [ ] Focus order logical
  • [ ] Touch targets ≥44pt
  • [ ] Announcements for dynamic content

SwiftUI / iOS

  • [ ] accessibilityLabel on custom views
  • [ ] accessibilityValue for state
  • [ ] accessibilityHint for actions
  • [ ] accessibilityElement(children:) grouping
  • [ ] VoiceOver navigation order
  • [ ] Dynamic Type support
  • [ ] Sufficient contrast

Interpreting Tool Output

Common Tools

ToolStrengthLimitation
axeComprehensive, low false positivesCan't test keyboard nav, focus order
LighthouseQuick overview, integratedLess detailed than axe
WAVEVisual overlay helpfulCan be noisy
Accessibility Inspector (iOS)Native iOS testingManual process
Android Accessibility ScannerNative Android testingLimited depth

Tool Output Processing

  1. Import findings from tool
  2. Remove false positives (verify each finding)
  3. Map to WCAG criterion (tools don't always specify)
  4. Classify severity (tool severity often inaccurate)
  5. Add context (location, impact, remediation)
  6. Deduplicate (same issue across pages/components)

Processing Tester Findings

Manual tester reports may need standardization:

  1. Normalize format to audit report structure
  2. Map to WCAG if tester didn't specify
  3. Classify severity using consistent scale
  4. Add technical detail if tester provided only description
  5. Verify reproducibility if unclear
  6. Request clarification if finding is ambiguous

See references/tester-findings.md for interpretation guide.


References:

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

04

需要参考平台分布和安装热度时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

补充不同宿主或平台的使用分布数据

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Claude Code

30.76%
按下载量换算53

windsurf

24.12%
按下载量换算41

trae

17.04%
按下载量换算29

OpenCode

13.18%
按下载量换算23

weavefox

9.26%
按下载量换算16

Codex

3.4%
按下载量换算6

安全审计

暂无安全审计结果可展示。

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills