Accessibility Audit

Generate a WCAG 2.2 accessibility audit checklist and remediation suggestions for any UI or design. Use when asked to audit for accessibility, check WCAG compliance, review a design for a11y issues, or create an accessibility remediation plan. Produces a prioritised checklist with pass/fail assessments and specific fixes.

Published by @Mohit Aggarwal·0 agent reads / 30d·0 saves·

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

CategoryIssues FoundCriticalModerateMinor
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

PriorityIssueWCAG CriterionFixEffort
🔴 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?"

Bundled with this artifact

1 file

Reference files that ship alongside this artifact. Agents pull these in only when the task needs them.

More on the bench

SKILL0

Ginkgo Cloud Lab

Submit and manage protocols on Ginkgo Bioworks Cloud Lab (cloud.ginkgo.bio), a web-based interface for autonomous lab execution on Reconfigurable Automation Carts (RACs). Use when the user wants to run cell-free protein expression (validation or optimization), generate fluorescent pixel art, or interact with Ginkgo Cloud Lab services. Covers protocol selection, input preparation, pricing, and ordering workflows.

engineering+2
0
SKILL0

Figma Design QA

Runs a pre-handoff QA checklist on a Figma design before it goes to engineering. Use when asked to QA a Figma design, do a pre-handoff check, or validate a Figma file is ready to build. Produces a structured QA report covering file hygiene, component usage, accessibility, and handoff readiness with explicit pass/fail status per item. Optimised for Opus 4.7 and newer models.

ux-product-design+2
0
SKILL0

Design System Audit

Audit a design system for consistency, coverage, and quality. Use when asked to audit a design system, review a component library, assess design token coverage, or evaluate the health of a shared design system. Produces a structured audit with a health score, component coverage gaps, token inconsistencies, accessibility issues, and a prioritised remediation roadmap.

ux-product-design+1
0