name	review-a11y
description	Use to REVIEW code changes for accessibility — '/review-a11y', 'review my changes/PR/branch for a11y', 'accessibility review of this diff'. Scopes to exactly the code under change (staged files, working diff, or branch vs merge-base), runs the bundled install-free ultra11y engine (node scripts/ultra11y.mjs, no keys; static WCAG 2.2 AA checks tied to success criteria, cross-file JSX/TSX via --graph), then adds YOUR judgment: refute false positives (SFC/library-source findings are preliminary), decide alt relevance and link purpose, name the rendering criteria (contrast, focus, zoom) as residual risks — never invent a non-conformity. Output: a severity-ranked review (blocking → major → minor) with file:line, concrete fixes, residual risks and a one-line verdict, in the conversation's language (technical tokens stay in English). Companion of the ultra11y skill (full audits, reports, PRD, RGAA packs). Triggers: 'review a11y', 'a11y review', 'accessibility review'.
license	MIT
metadata	{"version":"2.14.0"}

review-a11y — accessibility review of changed code

The review counterpart of the ultra11y skill: where ultra11y produces full audits and compliance deliverables, this skill reviews exactly the code under change — a diff, a branch, a PR — and reports like a code reviewer. Same division of labour: the deterministic, install-free engine bundled with this skill does the mechanical work (machine-checkable WCAG 2.2 AA non-conformities, each tied to a success criterion, cited file:line), and the AI agent adjudicates the judgment — refute false positives, decide alt relevance/link purpose/focus logic statically from the code, and route what needs a rendered DOM to scan. A human is at most optional oversight.

Engine resolution: every command below is node scripts/ultra11y.mjs … where scripts/ultra11y.mjs lives next to this SKILL.md (the engine ships inside the skill; no install, no key). Run it with the reviewed project as the working directory. In the ultra11y repository itself, the repo root's scripts/ultra11y.mjs is the same file.

Core rules (shared with ultra11y):

Never invent a non-conformity: report only what the engine found or what you can see and cite in the code under review.

Review the change, not the world: findings outside the reviewed scope are noted in one line at most ("pre-existing, out of scope"), never mixed into the verdict.

Residual is explicit, never silently conforming: the rendering criteria (contrast, focus visibility, zoom/reflow, content-on-hover) are named as residual risks for the changed components — never asserted from source, resolved in the rendered page (scan). The judgment criteria (alt relevance, link purpose, reading order) the AI agent adjudicates from the code itself, recording a reason — no status without a justified verdict.

Language: write the review in the conversation's language, but technical tokens stay in English even in French prose — aria-live stays aria-live (never « région live »), same for tabindex, alt, role="alert", landmark role names.

1. Scope — review what changed

Pick the FIRST that applies (ask only when genuinely ambiguous):

node scripts/ultra11y.mjs audit <files the user named> --jsx --json     # explicit files
node scripts/ultra11y.mjs audit --staged --graph --json                 # staged snapshot (pre-commit review)
node scripts/ultra11y.mjs audit --changed --graph --json                # working diff
node scripts/ultra11y.mjs audit --since origin/main --graph --json     # the whole branch (PR review) — use the repo's default branch

Always pass --graph for JSX/TSX (real AST + cross-file rules: icon-only component used without a name, anchor target defined in another file…); it also suppresses a class of single-file false positives.
Pass --lang matching the conversation so the engine's message/remediation strings are in the review's language (unset, the CLI auto-detects — a fallback, not a substitute).
Whole-repo review is an audit, not a review — offer the ultra11y skill instead.
Test/story markup (*.test.*, *.stories.*, __tests__/) is excluded by default; name such a file explicitly to include it, or pass --no-default-excludes.

2. Judge — the engine's findings are candidates, not verdicts

For each finding (--json gives criteria, severity, file:line, message, remediation):

Confirm the occurrence: open the cited line; the offending element must really be there in the change under review.
preliminary: true findings (.vue/.svelte/.astro source, library components): the template parser cannot see slots, conditionals or provide/inject wiring. Confirm against the rendered DOM if captures exist (.ultra11y/captures, from the ultra11y skill's render --setup harvester), otherwise report them as provisional with that caveat — or refute them with evidence from the code.
Library-rendered JSX (DSFR, MUI…): a clean source review can still ship broken HTML (false negatives) — say so explicitly when the change touches such components, and recommend a rendered-DOM check (scan, or the ultra11y capture pipeline).
The judgment criteria are the AI agent's to adjudicate: alt text relevance, link purpose in context, visible label vs accessible name, keyboard/focus logic of the changed component (read the full component source, not just the flagged line), recording a reason for each call.
Refuting a finding requires cited evidence (the code that disproves it); silently dropping findings is forbidden.

3. Report — a review, not a compliance document

Render in the conversation's language (Core rule 4), grouped by severity:

## Accessibility review — <scope, e.g. branch feat/x vs main, 12 files>

### 🔴 Blocking
- `src/components/Form.tsx:42` — **3.3.2 Labels or Instructions** — input has no
  label and placeholder is its only hint → associate a real <label for>, keep the
  placeholder as an example only.

### 🟠 Major / 🟡 Minor
- …same shape…

### Residual risks (rendering-dependent — resolve in the rendered page via scan)
- contrast of the new button variants (1.4.3), focus visibility on the custom menu (2.4.7)

### Verdict
1 blocking, 2 major to fix before merge; 2 provisional SFC findings to confirm on the
rendered DOM; residual risks listed above.

Keep the engine's remediation text as the base of each fix — it is already localized and criterion-grounded.
Pre-existing issues spotted in passing go in ONE final line, out of the verdict.

4. After the review (opt-in)

Safe mechanical fixes: fix --staged --write --safe (auto-applies the safe codemods to staged files and re-stages them) or node scripts/ultra11y.mjs fix <files> --write; dry-run without --write.
Formal deliverables (dated report, auditor conformance blocks, PRD backlog, GitHub issues, RGAA/country-standard vocabulary): that is the ultra11y skill — same engine, same findings (report, prd, check/verify gates).
Make it automatic: the ultra11y skill's init --hook installs a pre-commit gate running this same staged review mechanically.

Do not

Invent a non-conformity the engine did not find and you cannot cite.
Assert contrast/focus/zoom from source — they are residual risks until rendered (resolve via scan).
Mix pre-existing repo issues into the verdict on the change.
Translate technical tokens in French prose (aria-live, never « région live »).

review-a11y — accessibility review of changed code

Core rules (shared with ultra11y):

Never invent a non-conformity: report only what the engine found or what you can see and cite in the code under review.
Review the change, not the world: findings outside the reviewed scope are noted in one line at most ("pre-existing, out of scope"), never mixed into the verdict.
Residual is explicit, never silently conforming: the rendering criteria (contrast, focus visibility, zoom/reflow, content-on-hover) are named as residual risks for the changed components — never asserted from source, resolved in the rendered page (scan). The judgment criteria (alt relevance, link purpose, reading order) the AI agent adjudicates from the code itself, recording a reason — no status without a justified verdict.
Language: write the review in the conversation's language, but technical tokens stay in English even in French prose — aria-live stays aria-live (never « région live »), same for tabindex, alt, role="alert", landmark role names.

1. Scope — review what changed

Pick the FIRST that applies (ask only when genuinely ambiguous):

node scripts/ultra11y.mjs audit <files the user named> --jsx --json # explicit files node scripts/ultra11y.mjs audit --staged --graph --json # staged snapshot (pre-commit review) node scripts/ultra11y.mjs audit --changed --graph --json # working diff node scripts/ultra11y.mjs audit --since origin/main --graph --json # the whole branch (PR review) — use the repo's default branch

Always pass --graph for JSX/TSX (real AST + cross-file rules: icon-only component used without a name, anchor target defined in another file…); it also suppresses a class of single-file false positives.

Pass --lang matching the conversation so the engine's message/remediation strings are in the review's language (unset, the CLI auto-detects — a fallback, not a substitute).

Whole-repo review is an audit, not a review — offer the ultra11y skill instead.

Test/story markup (*.test.*, *.stories.*, __tests__/) is excluded by default; name such a file explicitly to include it, or pass --no-default-excludes.

2. Judge — the engine's findings are candidates, not verdicts

For each finding (--json gives criteria, severity, file:line, message, remediation):

Confirm the occurrence: open the cited line; the offending element must really be there in the change under review.

preliminary: true findings (.vue/.svelte/.astro source, library components): the template parser cannot see slots, conditionals or provide/inject wiring. Confirm against the rendered DOM if captures exist (.ultra11y/captures, from the ultra11y skill's render --setup harvester), otherwise report them as provisional with that caveat — or refute them with evidence from the code.

Library-rendered JSX (DSFR, MUI…): a clean source review can still ship broken HTML (false negatives) — say so explicitly when the change touches such components, and recommend a rendered-DOM check (scan, or the ultra11y capture pipeline).

The judgment criteria are the AI agent's to adjudicate: alt text relevance, link purpose in context, visible label vs accessible name, keyboard/focus logic of the changed component (read the full component source, not just the flagged line), recording a reason for each call.

Refuting a finding requires cited evidence (the code that disproves it); silently dropping findings is forbidden.

3. Report — a review, not a compliance document

Render in the conversation's language (Core rule 4), grouped by severity:

## Accessibility review — <scope, e.g. branch feat/x vs main, 12 files> ### 🔴 Blocking - `src/components/Form.tsx:42` — **3.3.2 Labels or Instructions** — input has no label and placeholder is its only hint → associate a real <label for>, keep the placeholder as an example only. ### 🟠 Major / 🟡 Minor - …same shape… ### Residual risks (rendering-dependent — resolve in the rendered page via scan) - contrast of the new button variants (1.4.3), focus visibility on the custom menu (2.4.7) ### Verdict 1 blocking, 2 major to fix before merge; 2 provisional SFC findings to confirm on the rendered DOM; residual risks listed above.

Keep the engine's remediation text as the base of each fix — it is already localized and criterion-grounded.

Pre-existing issues spotted in passing go in ONE final line, out of the verdict.

4. After the review (opt-in)

Safe mechanical fixes: fix --staged --write --safe (auto-applies the safe codemods to staged files and re-stages them) or node scripts/ultra11y.mjs fix <files> --write; dry-run without --write.

Formal deliverables (dated report, auditor conformance blocks, PRD backlog, GitHub issues, RGAA/country-standard vocabulary): that is the ultra11y skill — same engine, same findings (report, prd, check/verify gates).

Make it automatic: the ultra11y skill's init --hook installs a pre-commit gate running this same staged review mechanically.

Do not

Invent a non-conformity the engine did not find and you cannot cite.

Assert contrast/focus/zoom from source — they are residual risks until rendered (resolve via scan).

Mix pre-existing repo issues into the verdict on the change.

Translate technical tokens in French prose (aria-live, never « région live »).