version: "1.0.2" name: accessibility-testing description: Use this skill when you need to design accessibility testing against WCAG, keyboard navigation, and assistive technology scenarios; triggers include accessibility testing and a11y testing.

Accessibility Testing (English)

Chinese version： See the corresponding Chinese skill.

When to Use

• Need help with accessibility testing in a real project context.
• Need an output that can be used directly for execution, review, or follow-up.

Workflow

1. Read and follow the main prompt listed under Progressive disclosure (coverage, structure, quality bar).
2. Add only project context that changes the result: scope, environment, constraints, risks, dependencies, expected deliverable.
3. If input is incomplete, return a usable first draft and explicitly mark assumptions and gaps.
4. Default to Markdown; switch formats only when the user asks.

Core Constraints

• Prioritize by risk / business impact — do not treat everything equally.
• Separate confirmed facts from current assumptions.
• Do not invent endpoints, fields, environments, or root causes the user did not provide.
• Keep output executable: concrete scenarios, clear priority, clear next steps.

Progressive Disclosure

• Before producing output, read and follow prompts/accessibility-testing.md (minimum coverage, output structure, quality bar).
• When Excel/CSV/JSON/Word is requested: read output-formats.md and honor the format.
• When a ready-made template fits: use matching files under output-templates/.
• For deep framework/troubleshoot/schema notes: read only the relevant file(s) under references/, do not load the whole directory.
• For format conversion or helper checks: prefer existing scripts/ over reinventing.
• For evaluating/regressing this skill: use evals/ with skill-up.

Pre-delivery Checklist

• [ ] Followed the main prompt's output structure
• [ ] Minimum coverage focus: scope and target users, keyboard access, focus order and visible focus, screen reader semantics and labels, headings and landmarks, form errors and validation feedback, color contrast and non-color cues, images, icons, and alternative text, ... (details in main prompt)
• [ ] Covered the minimum checklist, or explained omissions
• [ ] High-risk items have explicit priority
• [ ] Did not invent details the user did not provide
• [ ] Assumptions and gaps are marked

Common Pitfalls

• Do not pretend completeness when scope/context is missing.
• Do not treat every item as equally important.
• Do not skip assumptions and information gaps.
• Do not dump generic theory unrelated to the current toolchain.