
Review
- 33 installs
- 87 repo stars
- Updated June 9, 2026
- owl-listener/inclusive-design-skills
Helps with ai & agent building tasks during AI-assisted development.
About
review is a Claude Code skill for ai & agent building. It helps solo builders move faster with AI-assisted coding.
- review
- AI & Agent Building
- AI-coding skill
Review by the numbers
- 33 all-time installs (skills.sh)
- +5 installs in the week ending Aug 4, 2026 (Skillselion tracking)
- Ranked #8,975 of 16,546 AI & Agent Building skills by installs in the Skillselion catalog
- Data as of Aug 4, 2026 (Skillselion catalog sync)
npx skills add https://github.com/owl-listener/inclusive-design-skills --skill reviewAdd your badge
Show developers this skill is listed on Skillselion. Paste this into your README.
| Installs | 33 |
|---|---|
| repo stars | ★ 87 |
| Last updated | June 9, 2026 |
| Repository | owl-listener/inclusive-design-skills ↗ |
What it does
Helps with ai & agent building tasks during AI-assisted development.
Files
Review Accessibility Decisions
Surface the accessibility decisions that were made — deliberately or by default — in an existing feature, and document them before they get lost.
Process
Step 1: Identify Implicit Decisions
Walk through the feature and list every design choice that affects accessibility, even if nobody explicitly decided it:
- How is keyboard navigation handled?
- What happens with screen readers?
- What colour and contrast choices were made?
- How are errors communicated?
- What motion and animation exists?
- What user preferences are respected?
Many of these were never consciously decided — they were inherited from a framework, copied from another feature, or left at defaults. Those are still decisions. Document them.
Step 2: Assess Each Decision
For each identified decision, determine:
- Was this intentional or accidental?
- Does it meet current accessibility standards?
- Who does it serve well? Who does it exclude?
- Is there evidence behind it or was it arbitrary?
Step 3: Check for Undocumented Tradeoffs
Using tradeoff-analysis, identify decisions where accessibility was traded for something else:
- Speed: "we didn't have time to make this keyboard accessible"
- Complexity: "the accessible version was too hard to build"
- Design: "the accessible version didn't look right"
- Ignorance: "we didn't know this was an issue"
Document each with its current impact on users.
Step 4: Map Current Compliance
Using compliance-mapping, assess the feature's current state against WCAG 2.2 Level AA. Identify conformance gaps.
Step 5: Catalogue Debt
Using accessibility-debt-tracking, create a debt record for every known issue discovered in this review.
Output
Deliver a decision review report:
1. Decision inventory — every accessibility-affecting decision found, marked as intentional or accidental 2. Undocumented tradeoffs — decisions where accessibility was sacrificed, with current user impact 3. Compliance gaps — WCAG criteria not currently met 4. Debt register — known issues with severity, owner, and recommended timeline 5. Recommendations — which decisions should be revisited first