Accessibility Inspect

This is the semi-automated manual tier of a WCAG assessment: the checks that need interaction (keyboard, focus, state changes, reflow) or human review (focus visibility, error recovery, reading order), which a static rule engine can't decide. Work against the running page; use source only to map a finding to file:line. Locate and assess — don't fix (that's accesslint:accessibility-fix). The automated tier is accesslint:accessibility-scan; accesslint:accessibility-audit runs both under WCAG-EM.

The shared rules — severity, the no-proxy boundary, high-risk patterns, conformance, grounding — are in ../shared/methodology.md. Read it when a call needs judgment. The rules that always apply are below.

Grading

Tag each finding with a severity (user impact) and an evidence basis (what you can support). Keep the two separate.

• ● Verified — deterministic and reproducible. Cite the selector, the interaction, and the observed a11y-tree or DOM fact. Without that proof it is not ●.
• ◐ Flagged — you have evidence, but the decision needs a person. Attach the evidence and your opinion; don't decide it yourself.
• ○ Human-required — needs assistive technology or lived experience. Hand it off; don't emulate it.

When unsure between two evidence grades, use the lower one. The icons show evidence basis by fill, not color.

A finding that stacks a deterministic fact on an interpretive call takes the lower grade. The machine-checkable half (e.g. no programmatic status in the a11y tree — a 1.3.1 fact) is ● evidence inside a ◐ finding; the interpretive conclusion (e.g. that color is the sole carrier of the meaning — 1.4.1) stays ◐. Citing the ● half does not upgrade the whole.

Severity (user impact, separate from evidence basis):

• Critical — blocks a core task, with no workaround.
• Serious — a major barrier; the task is possible but difficult.
• Moderate — noticeable friction; the task still completes.
• Minor — a small inefficiency or polish issue.

The ledger — a denominator, not a script

The checkpoint areas below are the run's denominator: every criterion in them ends the run in exactly one state, and the report says which.

• ● verified or ◐/○ flagged — you drove the check and have the evidence.
• N/A — the triggering feature isn't on the page (no form, no media, no drag UI). Decided from the snapshot; free.
• Not exercised — the feature is present but you didn't drive it. Reported as undetermined, never silently dropped, and never as a pass.

Not-exercised is a legitimate, honest outcome and it costs nothing. Drive only what the page's features and the engine's gaps demand; don't work through checkpoints to make the report look thorough. An "undetermined — not exercised" line and a driven-and-verified line differ in evidence, not in honesty.

Dedup before driving, not after: the engine (accessibility-scan) owns the statically-detectable criteria — name/label presence, lang, autocomplete, semantic markup, contrast of text on flat backgrounds. If a scan result set or engine-owned SC list was provided (as accessibility-audit does), never re-check those criteria; ledger them as engine-owned. Without one, read what you can from the initial snapshot rather than re-deriving what the engine would catch.

Per-checkpoint procedure and default grades: references/checkpoints.md. Read it when a triggered area needs its detailed steps, or when the user asks for a deep pass (--deep: drive every triggered area through its full procedure).

Evidence budget — cap spend by grade

Calibrated uncertainty must be cheaper than false certainty. The grade a finding can reach bounds the evidence worth gathering:

• ● — full proof, gathered once: selector, interaction, observed DOM or a11y-tree fact. Don't repeat an interaction you already recorded.
• ◐ — hard cap: one selector, one screenshot (only if the question is visual), your opinion, and what a person should confirm. Then stop. A ◐ is re-decided by a human whichever way you lean; more evidence doesn't upgrade it to ●, it just costs more.
• ○ — zero driving: name the functional ability, the assistive technology, and the flow you already exercised. Never drive the page to "strengthen" a ○.

Prerequisite: a browser to drive

This tier runs through a browser MCP: chrome-devtools (recommended), playwright, or puppeteer. If none is connected, run only the static checks, report the rest as ○ handoffs, and tell the user:

bashCopy code
claude mcp add chrome-devtools npx -- -y chrome-devtools-mcp@latest

Target

$ARGUMENTS is a URL, an accesslint.config.json target name, or empty for the default target. --selector <css> scopes to a component; --wait-for <css> waits for async content.

navigate_page needs a URL, so resolve first:

• A URL: use it.
• A target name or empty: read accesslint.config.json (and the gitignored accesslint.config.local.json overlay) and resolve the name (or default) to its url; also take its waitFor and selector.
• No config: ask for a URL, or suggest npx @accesslint/cli init.

Then navigate to the URL and wait for the gate (--wait-for if given, otherwise the target's waitFor) before testing.

Driving efficiently

One snapshot, then scoped reads. Take one full snapshot after the wait gate; it is the basis for structure, names, roles, states, and the N/A decisions. After a state change, don't re-snapshot the page — read only the widget that changed, via evaluate_script scoped to its selector (or a snapshot of that subtree). A full-page re-snapshot per interaction is the single largest avoidable cost in this tier.

One batched keyboard walk. Traverse focus in a single evaluate_script call, not one press_key/snapshot cycle per stop: compute the tabbable sequence, focus() each element in order, and return compact JSON per stop — selector, role/name, document.activeElement confirmation, computed outline/box-shadow on :focus, bounding box (which settles 2.5.8 for free), and whether the element sits under a sticky/overlay rect (2.4.11). The walk is deterministic DOM fact, so its results are ●-citable.

The walk finds candidates; real key events confirm behavior. Scripted focus() doesn't run an app's keydown handlers, so operability (Enter/Space/arrows) and trap claims still need press_key — but only at the walk's suspects: composite widgets (roving tabindex, aria-activedescendant), elements whose handlers plausibly capture Tab/Esc, anything the walk couldn't reach. A ● keyboard-trap finding needs the real Tab/Esc presses at that widget; it doesn't need them at every widget on the page.

High-risk patterns

For drag-and-drop, rich-text editors, tree views, data grids, custom comboboxes or menus, carousels, and toast or live-region-heavy UIs, heuristic checks are unreliable. Name the APG pattern, verify what you can (●/◐), and hand off the rest as ○ with the assistive-technology steps to run. Use explain_rule for engine rules and the APG for widget contracts.

Report

Group findings by evidence basis; mark severity inline. Close the ledger at the top — every SC in the denominator lands in exactly one bucket — and keep it compact: counts, then bare SC numbers. Group not-exercised SCs by shared reason, one parenthetical clause per group, never a line per SC.

The report spends its words on failures, flags, and handoffs. A pass is its SC number in the ledger — not a paragraph: no "what passed" narration beyond at most one sentence, and no restating in the recommendations a fix already given on its finding.

Copy code
# Manual inspection — <target>  ·  semi-automated tier
Severity: <c> critical · <s> serious · <m> moderate    Basis: ● <v> · ◐ <f> · ○ <h>
Ledger: pass ● <SCs> · fail ● <SCs> · flagged ◐/○ <SCs> · engine-owned <SCs> · N/A <SCs>
        not exercised → undetermined: <SCs (shared reason)> · <SCs (shared reason)>

## ● Verified
- [serious] Keyboard trap in date picker — SC 2.1.2
    where: div.datepicker[role=dialog]   repro: Tab into grid, focus never exits via Tab or Esc
    fix: <mechanical> | NEEDS HUMAN

## ◐ Flagged
- [moderate] Focus indicator may be too faint — SC 2.4.7
    where: button.ghost   evidence: focus-ghost.png; outline = 1px rgba(0,0,0,.2)
    opinion: likely fails 3:1 non-text contrast — confirm visually

## ○ Human-required
- Live-region announcement on add-to-cart — SC 4.1.3
    aria-live="polite" present (●); actual NVDA/JAWS/VoiceOver output unverified
    needs: screen-reader users (blind / low-vision, per Section 508 FPC)
    flow: add-to-cart → toast (exercised above)

Ground each entry by selector and visible text. Add file:line (symbol) only when accessibility-scan's source maps provide it; don't guess. Each ○ entry is a handoff: the functional ability and assistive technology needed, plus the flow you exercised.

Notes

• The a11y tree shows machine state, not what a screen reader announces. aria-live being present does not mean it announces.
• Browser zoom isn't exposed; CSS-zoom approximations are ◐.
• Wait for async content before the initial snapshot; after that, prefer selector-scoped reads over re-snapshots.
• Composing the tiers (dedup against accessibility-scan, one shared browser) is accessibility-audit's job. On its own, this skill reports what its checks find — and its ledger says what they didn't.