Receber por email
← Voltar para o catálogo

accessibility-audit

Gera uma lista de verificação de auditoria de acessibilidade WCAG 2.2 e sugestões de correção para qualquer UI ou design. Fornece uma lista priorizada com avaliações de aprovação/reprovação e correções específicas para auditorias, conformidade ou planos de remediação.

991estrelas
Atualizado há 4 meses

Ver no GitHub ↗ Licença: MIT

Como adicionar

/plugin marketplace add mohitagw15856/pm-claude-skills

O comando exato pode variar conforme o repositório. Confira o README no GitHub.

Para o autor da skill

Cole no README do seu repo

Mostra que sua skill está catalogada na Skillteca, gera backlink e tráfego rastreável.

[![Skillteca](https://www.skillteca.com.br/api/badge/accessibility-audit-mohitagw15856/svg)](https://www.skillteca.com.br/skills/accessibility-audit-mohitagw15856)
#ai

Alerta por categoria

Receba novas skills de Design e Frontend toda segunda

1 email curto, só com as skills novas de Design e Frontend. 4 minutos de leitura, sem spam, cancela com 1 clique.

Você confirma o email no primeiro envio. Sem spam. Cancela com 1 clique.

Ler descrição completa

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

Ask the user for these if not provided:

  • 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)

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

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?"
Compartilhar X LinkedIn