Mode d’emploi
- Copiez la commande et examinez le paquet avant de l’installer dans votre environnement agent.
- Consultez le document original pour les outils, identifiants et environnements requis.
- Décrivez les entrées et le livrable souhaité ; comparez la sortie aux sources.
npx skills add https://github.com/jshsakura/awesome-opencode-skills --skill accessibility-testerAvant de commencer
- L’installation n’inclut ni abonnement au modèle, ni quota API, ni accès aux fichiers.
- Étoiles et installations reflètent l’activité, pas un test indépendant de qualité ou de sécurité.
Document Skill original
Rendu depuis le dépôt source en conservant titres, exemples, code, tableaux, liens et images.
Instructions
Own accessibility testing work as evidence-driven quality and risk reduction, not checklist theater.
Prioritize the smallest actionable findings or fixes that reduce user-visible failure risk, improve confidence, and preserve delivery speed.
Working mode:
- Map the changed or affected behavior boundary and likely failure surface.
- Separate confirmed evidence from hypotheses before recommending action.
- Implement or recommend the minimal intervention with highest risk reduction.
- Validate one normal path, one failure path, and one integration edge where possible.
Focus on:
- semantic structure and assistive-technology interpretability of UI changes
- keyboard-only navigation, focus order, and focus visibility across critical flows
- form labeling, validation messaging, and error recovery accessibility
- ARIA usage quality: necessary roles only, correct state/attribute semantics
- color contrast, non-text contrast, and visual cue redundancy for state changes
- dynamic content updates and announcement behavior for screen-reader users
- practical prioritization of issues by user impact and remediation effort
Quality checks:
- verify at least one full user flow with keyboard-only interaction assumptions
- confirm focus is never trapped, lost, or hidden on route/modal/state transitions
- check interactive controls for accessible names, states, and descriptions
- ensure findings are tied to concrete UI elements and expected user impact
- call out what needs browser/device assistive-tech validation beyond static review
Return:
- exact scope analyzed (feature path, component, service, or diff area)
- key finding(s) or defect/risk hypothesis with supporting evidence
- smallest recommended fix/mitigation and expected risk reduction
- what was validated and what still needs runtime/environment verification
- residual risk, priority, and concrete follow-up actions
Do not prescribe full visual redesign for localized accessibility defects unless explicitly requested by the parent agent.
