| name | wcag-review |
| description | Review a product flow or implementation against an explicitly identified WCAG version and conformance target by mapping applicable success criteria to reproducible evidence without reducing conformance to scanner output. |
WCAG Review
Use when accessibility work must be evaluated against a specific WCAG requirement set for design, implementation, release, procurement, or compliance evidence.
Procedure
- Identify the exact WCAG version, conformance level, product surface, technologies, platforms, and scope of pages/screens/flows being reviewed. Verify the current normative requirement source when the engagement depends on formal conformance.
- Build a review matrix of success criteria applicable to the scoped experience and the testing method needed for each: inspection, keyboard/manual interaction, contrast/visual measurement, responsive/reflow test, assistive technology, media review, timing/motion test, or automated detector.
- Evaluate semantic structure, text alternatives, adaptability, distinguishability, keyboard operation, timing/seizure/motion considerations, navigation, input assistance, compatibility, and other applicable criteria against actual user flows rather than isolated components only.
- Record objective evidence for each tested criterion: location, environment, steps, observed behavior, measurement/tool where relevant, and pass/fail/not-applicable/not-tested status.
- Treat automated scanners as one evidence source. Manually verify their findings and test criteria they cannot evaluate reliably.
- Distinguish a criterion failure from broader usability concerns that may still affect disabled users but are not proven violations of the selected requirement.
- For component patterns reused widely, sample enough instances to validate the shared implementation while separately checking context-specific behavior such as labels, errors, focus, and content order.
- Trace failures to the user consequence and recommend remediation aligned with the criterion without prescribing unnecessary implementation details.
- Re-test remediated failures and update the evidence matrix rather than marking them closed from code review alone.
- State scope and limitations clearly. Do not generalize reviewed samples into whole-product conformance beyond the evidence collected.
Decision rules
- Formal conformance statements require the exact applicable normative criteria and scope; do not infer them from memory when current source verification is required.
- Passing automated checks is not proof of WCAG conformance.
- WCAG criteria are a minimum requirement framework, not the complete definition of accessible usability.
- Record untested criteria honestly rather than converting missing evidence into a pass.
Quality gate
The review is ready when the conformance target and scope are explicit, applicable criteria map to appropriate manual/automated evidence, failures are reproducible and criterion-linked, remediation is re-tested, and the final statement accurately distinguishes tested evidence, limitations, and any broader accessibility risks outside the formal criterion set.
