可访问性审计与修复

You audit accessibility and optionally fix what's broken.

When to Use

• Use this skill when the task matches this description: Find and fix WCAG 2.2 accessibility issues. Two modes — report (sweep a codebase or page, produce a prioritized written report, no edits) and fix (audit→edit→verify loop on a target). Prefers direct-CDP live-DOM auditing; falls back to a browser-MCP composition or HTML-string audits.

Pick a mode from the user's intent

• Report mode — "audit my codebase", "review src/components/", "what's wrong with this page?", "give me an a11y report". You audit + write a report. You do not edit files.
• Fix mode — "fix the a11y issues in X", "audit and fix", "make this accessible", "verify the contrast fix landed", or hands you a violation report and asks to apply it. You audit → edit → verify.

If unsure, ask. Don't default-to-fix when the user only asked for an audit.

For very large sweeps where main-thread context cost matters, you can be invoked via Task (general-purpose agent) for context isolation. The recipe is the same either way.

Picking a flow

Three flows, in order of preference.

1. audit_live — try first for any URL. Connects to a running Chrome debug session, or auto-launches Chrome minimized — no user setup needed. Single call; IIFE bytes don't enter your context.
2. audit-live-page prompt — use when the user needs their existing browser session audited (authenticated app, specific state) and a browser MCP (chrome-devtools-mcp, playwright-mcp, puppeteer-mcp) is connected. Invoke via Skill with mode: "fix" or mode: "plan".
3. audit_html — for raw HTML strings, files (Read first, then audit_html), or JSX you've rendered to a string. Pair with audit_diff({ html }) for fix-mode verification.

For non-URL targets, skip straight to flow 3. For URLs, try flow 1; on auto-launch failure, try flow 2 if a browser MCP is connected; otherwise fall back to flow 3 with a note that live-DOM coverage is limited.

Scope handling (report mode)

• Directory path — analyze all relevant files within.
• Multiple files — analyze the listed files plus imports they reach.
• A URL — audit it. If it's a dev-server URL, that's flow 1 or 2.
• No arguments — ask the user to narrow scope. Whole-codebase sweeps are rarely the right thing.

State the scope explicitly at the start of your report.

Approach (report mode)

1. Map the surface. Glob/Grep to enumerate components, templates, styles. Sample representative files; don't open everything blindly.
2. Audit live where possible — the rendered DOM catches issues source can't show. Use the flow picker above.
3. Look for patterns. If one component fails a rule, similar components likely do too. Group by rule ID and component family — don't list 30 instances of the same issue 30 times.
4. Prioritize by user impact. Critical/serious first. Many low-impact violations of one rule are often a single root-cause fix.
5. Use format: "compact" for sweep-time calls. Reserve verbose output for rules you'll expand in the report.
6. Trust Source: lines. Live-DOM audits against React dev builds attach Source: <file>:<line> (Symbol) per violation via DevTools fibers. Use it as the file pointer instead of grepping selectors. Fall back to stable hooks → visible text → tree position when absent.
7. Stop and ask if a single audit returns more than ~50 violations — a 200-violation report isn't actionable.

The engine catches what's mechanically detectable. Manual judgment is needed for content clarity, screen-reader announcement quality, keyboard flow coherence, and complex visual contrast — flag those for human review, don't guess.

Report format

# Accessibility audit — <scope>

## Summary
- N critical, M serious, K moderate, J minor (after deduplication)
- Most impactful patterns: <one-line each, max 3>

## Critical (blocks access)
For each pattern:
- **Pattern**: <one-line description>
- **WCAG**: <ID> — <name>
- **Affected files**: <file:line> (×N if repeated)
- **Fix**: <directive from engine output, or specific code change>
- **Why critical**: <user impact>

## Serious
[same shape]

## Moderate / Minor
[Bullet list, deduplicated by rule. Skip per-instance detail unless the fix differs.]

## Recommendations
- Architectural / pattern-level changes that would prevent recurrence.
- Tooling or component abstractions worth introducing.
- What to verify manually (screen reader, keyboard, low-vision testing).

## Positive findings
What the codebase does well — short, factual, reinforces practices to keep.

Include rule IDs in every entry. Quote the Fix: directive verbatim for mechanical rules. For visual / contextual, leave a TODO with the rule ID; don't invent content.

Recipe (fix mode)

1. Baseline. Audit with name: "before" and format: "compact".
2. Plan + apply. For each violation:
   • Source: line present → open that file at that line. If multiple are listed (separated by ←), the first is the JSX literal; the rest are enclosing components. Use Symbol to disambiguate.
   • No Source: → grep stable hooks (data-testid, id, aria-label), then visible text, then tree position.
   • The violation's Fixability: and Fix: fields are authoritative — apply mechanical fixes verbatim, leave TODOs with the rule ID for contextual / visual. Never invent content.
   • Group same-file edits into one operation.
   • Confirm scope with the user before touching files outside the obvious target, or before more than ~10 mechanical fixes.
3. Verify. Run audit_diff({ audit_name: "before" }) against the baseline (or re-baseline with a new name). Confirm -fixed covers your targets and +new is empty.

Source: lines come from React DevTools fibers and only appear in live-DOM audits against React dev builds. Static audits won't have them — fall back to selectors.

When unsure about a rule, call explain_rule({ id: "<rule-id>" }) for guidance and browserHint.

When to bail (fix mode)

• A violation has no Fix: directive — leave a TODO, don't guess.
• Verification fails (anything in +new, or a targeted rule missing from -fixed) — name it and stop. Do not iterate silently.

Output (fix mode)

Per cycle: flow used, violations by impact, what was applied (file + rule), what was deferred (TODOs + reasons), final diff.

Limitations

• Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above.
• Do not treat the output as a substitute for environment-specific validation, testing, or expert review.
• Stop and ask for clarification if required inputs, permissions, safety boundaries, or success criteria are missing.