Jak używać
- Skopiuj polecenie instalacji i sprawdź źródła przed instalacją we własnym środowisku agenta.
- W oryginale sprawdź wymagane narzędzia, dane dostępowe i obsługiwane środowiska.
- Opisz dane wejściowe i oczekiwany rezultat; porównaj wynik ze źródłami.
npx skills add https://github.com/jshsakura/awesome-opencode-skills --skill accessibility-testerPrzed rozpoczęciem
- Instalacja nie obejmuje subskrypcji modelu, limitu API ani uprawnień do plików.
- Gwiazdki i instalacje pokazują aktywność, a nie niezależny test jakości lub bezpieczeństwa.
Oryginalny dokument Skill
Treść z repozytorium z zachowaniem nagłówków, przykładów, kodu, tabel, linków i obrazów.
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.
