accessibility-fix

---

name: accessibility-fix description: "Remediation only — repair web accessibility (a11y) violations against WCAG 2.2 with a baseline, edit, and verify loop. Takes a target (URL, files, directory) or a findings worklist from accessibility-scan/accessibility-inspect/accessibility-audit, applies mechanical fixes as given, leaves TODOs for visual or contextual judgment, and verifies by re-running the baseline check. It only fixes. To find issues use accessibility-scan (one page, automated), accessibility-inspect (one page, manual), or accessibility-audit (whole site, WCAG-EM); to check for regressions use accessibility-diff. Use it for 'fix the a11y issues in X', 'make this accessible', 'add missing alt text and labels', 'apply these accessibility fixes', 'remediate these violations'." argument-hint: "[target|url|report]" allowed-tools: Read, Edit, Write, Glob, Grep, Bash, Skill, Task, mcp__plugin_accesslint_accesslint__audit_html, mcp__plugin_accesslint_accesslint__audit_live, mcp__plugin_accesslint_accesslint__explain_rule, mcp__plugin_accesslint_accesslint__list_rules

This skill remediates accessibility violations: baseline, edit, verify. It only fixes. To find what's wrong, use accesslint:accessibility-scan (one page, automated), accesslint:accessibility-inspect (one page, manual), or accesslint:accessibility-audit (whole site, WCAG-EM); to check for regressions, use accesslint:accessibility-diff. The engine runs here are internal to the loop — a baseline before and a check after — not a report.

Shared conventions (grounding, never invent content): ../shared/methodology.md.

For large remediations, run via Task for context isolation; the steps are the same.

Input

• A findings worklist (from accessibility-scan, accessibility-inspect, or accessibility-audit, or pasted): apply it directly; the baseline is already done.
• A target (URL, config target name, files, or a directory): audit it first for the baseline, then fix.

Given neither, ask what to fix. Don't sweep a whole codebase unprompted.

Picking a flow (for baseline and verify)

1. audit_live for any URL. It ensures a debuggable Chrome (auto-launches a headless one if none is reachable) and audits the live DOM. Use selector to scope and wait_for for async content. The live DOM catches what source can't.
2. audit_html for raw HTML strings, files (Read first), or JSX rendered to a string.

For an authenticated session, have the user start a headed debuggable Chrome (npx @accesslint/chrome ensure --headed), sign in, then call audit_live({ url, port }) to attach to it.

Steps

1. Baseline. Audit with format: "compact" and record the violation set (rule ID and selector for each). Skip this if you were handed a worklist.
2. Apply. For each violation:
   • If a Source: line is present, open that file at that line. If several are listed (separated by ←), the first is the JSX literal and the rest are enclosing components; use Symbol to disambiguate.
   • If not, grep stable hooks (data-testid, id, aria-label), then visible text, then tree position.
   • Use the Fixability: and Fix: fields: apply mechanical fixes as given; leave a TODO with the rule ID for contextual or visual. Don't invent content (alt text, labels, link text).
   • Group edits to the same file into one operation.
   • Confirm scope before editing files outside the obvious target, or before more than about 10 mechanical fixes.
3. Verify. Re-run the same audit and compare to the baseline: every targeted violation gone, no new ones. For a precise new/fixed/pre-existing comparison on a URL, use accesslint:accessibility-diff rather than checking by eye.

Source: lines come from React DevTools fibers and appear only in live-DOM audits against React dev builds. Static audits won't have them; fall back to selectors. When unsure about a rule, use explain_rule({ id }).

When to stop

• A violation with no Fix: directive: leave a TODO, don't guess.
• Verification fails (a new violation appeared, or a targeted one remains): report it and stop. Don't iterate silently.

Output

Per cycle: the flow used, violations by impact, what was applied (file and rule), what was deferred (TODOs and why), and the before and after counts.