By name: reviewing-a11y description: Review accessibility of web pages, code implementations, design mockups, and specifications, then report severity-ranked issues and fixes. Use auditing-wcag instead for formal conformance decisions across all success criteria. argument-hint: URL, file path, or Figma URL to review allowed-tools: Read Grep Glob WebFetch Task mcp__playwright__browser_snapshot mcp__playwright__browser_navigate mcp__playwright__browser_click
Accessibility Review
Identify what the user wants reviewed, then perform the accessibility review by following the corresponding reference guide.
Step 1: Identify Review Target
Analyze the user's request to determine the review target:
Web Page (Live URL)
Indicators:
- User provides a URL starting with
http://orhttps:// - User says "check this page", "review this site", "test this URL"
- User wants to review a deployed/live website
Action: Follow the page review guide
Code Implementation
Indicators:
- User provides file paths (
.jsx,.tsx,.vue,.html,.js, etc.) - User says "review this component", "check my code", "look at this implementation"
- User mentions specific files or directories in the codebase
- User asks about static code analysis
Action: Follow the code review guide
Design Mockup/Specification
Indicators:
- User provides Figma URL (figma.com/file/...)
- User shares image files (.png, .jpg, .pdf of designs)
- User says "review this design", "check this mockup", "look at this wireframe"
- User asks about design specifications or visual accessibility
Action: Follow the design review guide
Ambiguous Cases
If unclear, ask the user:
I can review accessibility for:
1. **Live web pages** (provide URL) - I'll test the rendered page
2. **Code implementation** (provide file paths) - I'll analyze the source code
3. **Design mockups** (provide Figma URL or images) - I'll review visual designs
Which would you like me to review?
Step 2: Load the Guide and Review
Once you identify the target, read the reference guide matching the user's language and execute its process directly.
For Web Pages
Read the page review guide:
- English: references/page-review.md
- Japanese: references/page-review.ja.md
Follow the guide using available browser interaction, web retrieval, or user-provided content.
For Code
Read the code review guide:
- English: references/code-review.md
- Japanese: references/code-review.ja.md
Follow the guide by inspecting the target files and related implementation.
For Designs
Read the design review guide:
- English: references/design-review.md
- Japanese: references/design-review.ja.md
Follow the guide using available image, document, or Figma retrieval capabilities.
When to Use Sub-agents
- Use sub-agents only when the user explicitly requests parallel review, specialist delegation, or division across multiple targets.
- Assign one target type to each agent and provide the relevant guide and target.
- Wait for every result, remove duplicates, and return one consolidated report.
- If sub-agents are unavailable, review the targets sequentially in this agent.
Step 3: Return Results
When the review completes:
- Present the findings to the user
- Offer to review additional targets if needed
- Suggest next steps (e.g., "Would you like me to review the code implementation next?")
Important Notes
- Always read the appropriate guide before starting the review
- Choose the language (English or Japanese) based on the user's language
- Distinguish evidence from gaps and state what could not be verified
- Don't mix review types - use one guide per target type
Example Workflows
Example 1: User provides URL
User: "Review https://example.com for accessibility"
1. Identify: This is a web page (URL provided)
2. Read: references/page-review.md
3. Execute: Inspect the page by following the guide
4. Return: Present findings
Example 2: User provides file path
User: "Check src/components/Button.tsx for a11y issues"
1. Identify: This is code (file path provided)
2. Read: references/code-review.md
3. Execute: Inspect the target and related code by following the guide
4. Return: Present findings
Example 3: User provides Figma URL
User: "Review this design: https://figma.com/file/abc123"
1. Identify: This is a design (Figma URL)
2. Read: references/design-review.md
3. Execute: Inspect the design by following the guide
4. Return: Present findings
WCAG & Standards Reference
All reviews should reference:
- WCAG 2.2: https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/
- WAI-ARIA APG: https://www.w3.org/WAI/ARIA/apg/
- WCAG Quick Reference: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/quickref/
Common success criteria to reference:
- 1.1.1 Non-text Content (A)
- 1.3.1 Info and Relationships (A)
- 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum) (AA)
- 2.1.1 Keyboard (A)
- 2.4.6 Headings and Labels (AA)
- 4.1.2 Name, Role, Value (A)
Do not turn missing evidence into a conclusive finding. List unsupported checks as manual verification.