Cli audit

CLI Audit Skill

Use this skill when asked to audit a live URL from Claude CLI.

Respect robots directives and site terms of service for every live-site audit request.

Required Execution

When the user asks to audit a page URL, run:

npx --yes --package=github:mgifford/accessibility-skills cli-audit-inspect <URL>

This invocation is portable for Claude CLI users because it pulls the inspection command from this repository package instead of requiring a local scripts/ file in the target project.

Be Polite With Live Sites

When auditing live URLs, keep behavior respectful and low impact:

• Prefer single-page or small-batch checks first.
• Avoid rapid repeated scans against production pages.
• If Cloudflare/WAF blocks requests, do not brute-force retries.
• Recommend owner-approved alternatives: staging URLs, allowlisting, or manual checks.

Required Parsing

Parse the emitted JSON and evaluate:

1. axe.violations for automated WCAG and best-practice failures.
2. axe.incomplete for potential violations that need manual confirmation.
3. accessibilityTree for behavioral issues that automated rules miss, including:
   • Missing or unclear names for interactive elements
   • Unexpected roles or role mismatches
   • Landmark and heading structure problems
   • State communication gaps (expanded, checked, selected, disabled state)
   • Dialog and menu semantics that can indicate focus-management risk

Required Evaluation Method

Map findings to this repository's guidance before reporting:

• Start with skills/ACCESSIBILITY-general/SKILL.md.
• Then apply relevant topic skills based on observed problems (for example: forms, keyboard, navigation, color-contrast, aria-live-regions, image-alt-text, tables, svg, touch-pointer, tooltips).

Reporting Requirements

For each issue reported:

1. Identify source: axe or accessibilityTree.
2. Include affected selector/path from axe nodes when available.
3. Provide impact summary and severity using the relevant skill scale.
4. Cite WCAG 2.2 success criteria when determinable, and cite the source of the mapping (the axe rule's documented mapping, or the specific skill rule) — do not invent a WCAG mapping this audit's evidence does not support.
5. Provide a concrete remediation recommendation tied to a skill rule.
6. Preserve the tool's raw outcome (axe.violations vs. axe.incomplete, or the accessibility-tree evidence) rather than collapsing it into a single pass/fail label.
7. Report every axe.violations and accessibilityTree finding from this audit as evidence_status: automated-indicator with handling: review — this audit alone does not constitute the human confirmation needed for confirmed-standards-failure, confirmed-user-facing-barrier, or handling: report/suppress. See Accessibility Finding Tracking: Policy Classification.

If no issues are found, report residual risk clearly:

• Automated scans can miss interaction, timing, focus-flow, and assistive-tech behavior issues.
• Recommend manual keyboard and screen-reader validation using skills/manual-testing/SKILL.md.