Inclusive Design Sub-Skill

Version: 1.1.0
Framework: Jerry User-Experience -- Inclusive Design
Constitutional Compliance: Jerry Constitution v1.0
Parent Skill: /user-experience (skills/user-experience/SKILL.md)
Wave: 3 (Design System)
Project: PROJ-022 User Experience Skill | GitHub Issue #138

Document Sections

Section	Purpose
Document Audience	Triple-Lens audience guide
Purpose	Sub-skill overview and key capabilities
When to Use This Sub-Skill	Activation triggers and scope boundaries
Available Agents	Single agent with role, model, and output location
P-003 Compliance	Worker agent hierarchy position
Invoking the Agent	Invocation via ux-orchestrator
Methodology	WCAG 2.2 compliance audit, Microsoft Inclusive Design Persona Spectrum, accessibility testing protocols
MCP Dependencies	Figma REQ with screenshot-input fallback; Storybook ENH; Context7 for WCAG and ARIA docs
Output Specification	Output location, L0/L1/L2 structure, required sections
Routing	Keywords and lifecycle-stage routing integration
Cross-Framework Integration	Handoff from Atomic Design and Heuristic Eval; accessibility findings output
Synthesis Hypothesis Confidence	Confidence classifications for Inclusive Design outputs
Constitutional Compliance	Governing principles and AI-augmented analysis limitations
Registration	H-26 parent-routed registration model and AGENTS.md confirmation
Deployment Status	Wave 3 stub agent status and implementation timeline
Quick Reference	Common workflows and agent selection hints
References	Full repo-relative paths, requirements traceability, external citations

Document Audience (Triple-Lens)

This SKILL.md serves multiple audiences:

Level	Audience	Sections to Focus On
L0 (Stakeholder)	Product managers, designers, legal/compliance officers	Purpose, When to Use This Sub-Skill, Quick Reference
L1 (Developer)	Engineers invoking the agent	Invoking the Agent, Methodology, Output Specification
L2 (Architect)	Workflow designers, skill maintainers	Cross-Framework Integration, MCP Dependencies, Synthesis Hypothesis Confidence

---

Purpose

The Inclusive Design sub-skill provides structured accessibility evaluation using two complementary frameworks: WCAG 2.2 conformance auditing (W3C, 2023) and Microsoft Inclusive Design methodology (Microsoft, 2016). It targets tiny teams (1-5 people) who need to ensure their products are accessible to the broadest possible range of users while meeting legal compliance requirements (ADA, EAA, Section 508).

This sub-skill is part of Wave 3 (Design System), meaning it requires Wave 2 completion (launched product with analytics OR 1 completed Lean UX hypothesis cycle) before deployment. It pairs with /ux-atomic-design in the "Build to Evaluate" canonical sequence: components are built using atomic design principles, then evaluated for accessibility compliance.

Why Inclusive Design Matters for Tiny Teams

• Legal compliance -- The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA; US DOJ, 2024), European Accessibility Act (EAA, effective June 2025; European Parliament, 2019), and Section 508 (US federal; 29 U.S.C. Section 794d) create legal obligations for digital accessibility. Non-compliance exposes organizations to litigation risk, particularly under Title III ADA case law.
• Broader user reach -- Microsoft's Persona Spectrum methodology reveals that designing for permanent disabilities simultaneously benefits users with temporary and situational impairments. Designing for one person with a permanent arm injury also serves someone with a broken arm (temporary) or a parent holding a child (situational). This expands the addressable user base beyond what accessibility compliance alone achieves.
• Microsoft Inclusive Design principles -- The methodology operates on three principles: (1) Recognize exclusion -- identify who is being excluded by current design decisions, (2) Solve for one, extend to many -- design for a person in the most constrained scenario and the solution benefits everyone, (3) Learn from diversity -- people with disabilities are experts on adaptation and workarounds that inform better design for all.
• Cost efficiency -- Addressing accessibility during design (Wave 3) is significantly less expensive than retrofitting after launch. Teams that evaluate accessibility alongside component design avoid the accumulation of accessibility debt.

Key Capabilities

• WCAG 2.2 Compliance Auditing -- Systematic evaluation against WCAG 2.2 success criteria across four principles (Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, Robust) at conformance levels A, AA, and AAA
• Persona Spectrum Analysis -- Application of Microsoft Inclusive Design Persona Spectrum methodology to map permanent, temporary, and situational disability scenarios for each interaction pattern
• Color Contrast Evaluation -- Assessment of text and UI component color contrast ratios against WCAG 2.2 success criteria 1.4.3 (AA: 4.5:1 normal text, 3:1 large text) and 1.4.6 (AAA: 7:1 normal text, 4.5:1 large text)
• Keyboard Navigation Assessment -- Evaluation of keyboard-only operability including focus order, focus visibility, keyboard traps, and shortcut key conflicts per WCAG 2.2 Operable principle
• Screen Reader Compatibility Review -- Assessment of semantic HTML structure, ARIA landmark roles, live region announcements, and alternative text adequacy for assistive technology compatibility
• Cognitive Load Assessment -- Evaluation of information density, reading level, consistent navigation patterns, error prevention mechanisms, and input assistance per WCAG 2.2 Understandable principle

Source: Key capabilities derived from parent SKILL.md [skills/user-experience/SKILL.md -- Key Capabilities] ("Inclusive Design Evaluation -- WCAG 2.2 compliance and Microsoft Inclusive Design (Wave 3)") and [skills/user-experience/SKILL.md -- Available Agents] ("Inclusive design and accessibility auditor").

---

When to Use This Sub-Skill

Activate when:

• Auditing an existing interface or component for WCAG 2.2 conformance at A, AA, or AAA level
• Evaluating color contrast ratios for text, UI components, and graphical objects
• Assessing keyboard navigation completeness and focus management
• Reviewing screen reader compatibility and ARIA implementation
• Performing a Persona Spectrum analysis to map permanent, temporary, and situational disability scenarios
• Evaluating cognitive load and understandability of an interface
• Checking accessibility of components from an atomic design system (Build to Evaluate sequence)
• Responding to "Any stage: Check accessibility" routing from the ux-orchestrator
• Preparing accessibility documentation for legal compliance (ADA, EAA, Section 508)

Do NOT use for:

• Evaluating general usability heuristics beyond accessibility -- use /ux-heuristic-eval (Nielsen's 10) instead. Inclusive Design focuses specifically on accessibility; general usability evaluation is a broader scope.
• Building or cataloging a component library -- use /ux-atomic-design instead. Inclusive Design evaluates accessibility of components; it does not build the component taxonomy.
• Measuring quantitative UX health metrics -- use /ux-heart-metrics (Google GSM) instead. Inclusive Design produces qualitative accessibility findings; HEART Metrics produces ongoing measurement baselines.
• Designing experiments to test design changes -- use /ux-lean-ux instead. Inclusive Design evaluates current state; Lean UX tests hypotheses about changes.
• Diagnosing behavioral bottlenecks -- use /ux-behavior-design (Fogg B=MAP) instead. Inclusive Design evaluates accessibility barriers; behavior design diagnoses motivation/ability/prompt bottlenecks.
• Security-focused interface review or threat modeling -- use /eng-team instead.
• General research without accessibility focus -- use /problem-solving instead.

Source: Routing logic derived from [skills/user-experience/SKILL.md -- Lifecycle-Stage Routing] ("Any stage: Check accessibility -> /ux-inclusive-design") and [skills/user-experience/rules/ux-routing-rules.md -- Stage Routing Table], [skills/user-experience/rules/ux-routing-rules.md -- Common Intent Resolution].

---

Available Agents

Agent	Role	Tier	Mode	Model	Output Location
ux-inclusive-evaluator	Inclusive design and WCAG 2.2 accessibility auditor	T3	Systematic	Sonnet	skills/ux-inclusive-design/output/{engagement-id}/ux-inclusive-evaluator-{topic-slug}.md

STUB: The agent definition file (skills/ux-inclusive-design/agents/ux-inclusive-evaluator.md) is planned for creation during Wave 3 implementation of PROJ-022 EPIC-004. The SKILL.md specifies the methodology and output contract that the agent will implement. Agent definition file and governance YAML will contain frontmatter, identity, purpose, guardrails, and full body sections (<input>, <capabilities>, <methodology>, <output>).

Tool tier: T3 (External) = Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep + WebSearch, WebFetch + Context7 MCP. The T3 tier enables access to external WCAG specifications, ARIA authoring practices, and accessibility API documentation via Context7 and web search. Bash is intentionally excluded; T3 tier does not require shell access for MCP operations. See agent-development-standards.md [Tool Security Tiers] for full tier definitions.

The agent produces output at three levels per AD-M-004:

• L0 (Executive Summary): Conformance level achieved (A, AA, AAA, or none); critical WCAG violations count; Persona Spectrum coverage summary; top remediation priorities for stakeholders and cross-framework synthesis input.
• L1 (Technical Detail): Full WCAG 2.2 success criteria evaluation by principle (POUR), per-criterion pass/fail with evidence, Persona Spectrum profiles for each interaction pattern, color contrast ratio measurements, keyboard navigation audit, screen reader compatibility findings, and remediation recommendations with WCAG success criteria references.
• L2 (Strategic Implications): Organizational accessibility maturity assessment, legal compliance gap analysis (ADA, EAA, Section 508), accessibility debt quantification, inclusive design adoption roadmap, and cross-product accessibility pattern analysis.

Source: Agent specification from [skills/user-experience/SKILL.md -- Available Agents] and ORCHESTRATION.yaml pipeline-wave3 phase-2 (artifact: skills/ux-inclusive-design/agents/ux-inclusive-evaluator.md).

---

P-003 Compliance

The /ux-inclusive-design sub-skill contains a single worker agent. It is invoked by the ux-orchestrator (T5) via the Task tool. The agent does NOT have Task tool access and MUST NOT spawn sub-agents.

MAIN CONTEXT (user request)
    |
    v
ux-orchestrator (T5, Opus, Integrative) -- parent orchestrator
    |
    +-- ux-inclusive-evaluator (T3, Systematic, Sonnet) -- THIS sub-skill's worker
    +-- [other sub-skill workers...]

Enforcement:

• disallowedTools: [Task] declared in skills/ux-inclusive-design/agents/ux-inclusive-evaluator.md frontmatter
• P-003 prohibition in skills/ux-inclusive-design/agents/ux-inclusive-evaluator.governance.yaml capabilities.forbidden_actions
• CI gate validates no sub-skill agent has Task access (documented in skills/user-experience/rules/ci-checks.md)

Source: P-003 hierarchy from parent SKILL.md [P-003 Compliance].

---

Invoking the Agent

This is a sub-skill invoked by the ux-orchestrator, not directly by users. Users interact with the parent /user-experience skill, which routes to this sub-skill based on lifecycle-stage triage.

Via Natural Language (to parent skill)

"Audit this page for WCAG 2.2 AA compliance"
"Check the color contrast on our form components"
"Review this interface for screen reader compatibility"
"Map the persona spectrum for our checkout flow"
"Evaluate cognitive load on the settings page"
"Make this accessible"

The ux-orchestrator routes these requests to ux-inclusive-evaluator based on [skills/user-experience/rules/ux-routing-rules.md -- Stage Routing Table]. Specifically, the "Any stage: Check accessibility" route maps directly to /ux-inclusive-design without qualification question (source: [skills/user-experience/SKILL.md -- Common Intent-to-Route Resolution]).

Via Explicit Agent Request (to parent skill)

"Use ux-inclusive-evaluator to review color contrast and screen reader compatibility"
"Have ux-inclusive-evaluator perform a WCAG 2.2 AAA audit of the navigation"

Via Task Tool (orchestrator internal)

The ux-orchestrator invokes the agent via the Task tool:

Task(
    description="ux-inclusive-evaluator: WCAG 2.2 accessibility audit of checkout flow",
    subagent_type="jerry:ux-inclusive-evaluator",
    prompt="""
## UX CONTEXT (REQUIRED)
- **Engagement ID:** UX-0001
- **Topic:** Checkout Flow Accessibility Audit
- **Product:** [product name and domain]
- **Target Users:** [user description]
- **Target Conformance Level:** AA
- **Input:** [design screenshots, component inventory, markup references]

## TASK
Perform an inclusive design evaluation of the checkout flow.
1. Audit against WCAG 2.2 success criteria at the target conformance level
2. Evaluate color contrast ratios for all text and UI components
3. Assess keyboard navigation and focus management
4. Review screen reader compatibility and ARIA implementation
5. Produce Persona Spectrum analysis mapping permanent, temporary, and situational scenarios
6. Provide remediation recommendations with WCAG success criteria references

## MANDATORY PERSISTENCE (P-002)
Create file at: skills/ux-inclusive-design/output/UX-0001/ux-inclusive-evaluator-checkout-flow.md
"""
)

Governance codification (AD-M-007): The session_context contract (on_receive/on_send) is specified in ux-inclusive-evaluator.governance.yaml per AD-M-007. Fields are enumerated below:

on_receive fields:

Field	Type	Required	Description
engagement_id	string	Yes	UX engagement identifier (format: UX-{NNNN})
product_context	string	Yes	Product name, domain, and target user description
target_conformance_level	enum	Yes	WCAG conformance target: A, AA, or AAA
component_inventory	array	No	File paths to component inventory from /ux-atomic-design (Storybook references, component taxonomy)
design_artifacts	array	No	File paths to design screenshots, mockups, or markup (Figma links or image inputs)
upstream_artifacts	array	No	File paths to upstream handoff artifacts (heuristic eval findings with accessibility subset, atomic design component inventory)

on_send fields:

Field	Type	Required	Description
conformance_result	object	Yes	Overall conformance level achieved (A, AA, AAA, or none) with pass/fail per principle (POUR)
wcag_findings	array	Yes	Per-success-criterion findings with criterion ID, principle, level, pass/fail, evidence, severity, and remediation
persona_spectrum_analysis	array	Yes	Per-interaction-pattern persona spectrum profiles mapping permanent, temporary, and situational disability scenarios
contrast_ratios	array	Yes	Color contrast measurements with element reference, foreground/background values, computed ratio, and pass/fail per target level
keyboard_audit	object	Yes	Keyboard navigation findings: focus order issues, keyboard traps, missing focus indicators, shortcut conflicts
screen_reader_findings	array	Yes	Screen reader compatibility issues: missing ARIA roles, inadequate alt text, live region problems, heading hierarchy
remediation_priorities	array	Yes	Prioritized remediation list with WCAG criterion reference, severity, effort estimate, and impact description
synthesis_judgments	array	Yes	AI judgment calls with confidence classification (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW) and rationale

Source: Invocation pattern from parent SKILL.md [Invoking an Agent].

---

Methodology

Dual-Framework Approach

The evaluator applies two complementary frameworks in sequence:

1. WCAG 2.2 Compliance Audit -- Systematic, criterion-by-criterion evaluation against the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.2 (2023). Produces deterministic pass/fail results per success criterion.
2. Microsoft Inclusive Design -- Persona Spectrum analysis that maps each interaction pattern to permanent, temporary, and situational disability scenarios. Produces qualitative insights about who is excluded and how to extend solutions.

The dual-framework approach ensures both compliance coverage (WCAG addresses "what must be met") and design thinking coverage (Inclusive Design addresses "who is being excluded and why").

WCAG 2.2 Compliance Audit

WCAG 2.2 organizes accessibility requirements into four principles (POUR), each containing guidelines with testable success criteria at three conformance levels (A, AA, AAA).

Four Principles (POUR)

Principle	Letter	Focus	Example Guidelines
Perceivable	P	Information and UI components must be presentable in ways users can perceive	Text alternatives (1.1), time-based media (1.2), adaptable content (1.3), distinguishable presentation (1.4)
Operable	O	UI components and navigation must be operable by all users	Keyboard accessible (2.1), enough time (2.2), seizure-safe (2.3), navigable (2.4), input modalities (2.5)
Understandable	U	Information and UI operation must be understandable	Readable (3.1), predictable (3.2), input assistance (3.3)
Robust	R	Content must be robust enough for reliable interpretation by assistive technologies	Compatible with current and future user agents (4.1)

Conformance Levels

Level	Scope	Typical Target	Legal Requirement
A	Minimum accessibility -- addresses the most critical barriers	Minimum legal floor in some jurisdictions	ADA (case law baseline)
AA	Standard compliance target -- removes significant barriers for most users	Most common target for organizations	EAA (explicit requirement), Section 508 (federal), ADA (recommended)
AAA	Enhanced accessibility -- addresses barriers for specialized user needs	Aspirational; rarely achievable across an entire site	Not typically required by law; recommended for specific content types

Success Criteria Evaluation Format

Each WCAG success criterion is evaluated using the following format:

### SC {X.Y.Z}: {Success Criterion Name} [{Level}]

- **Status:** PASS | FAIL | NOT APPLICABLE
- **Evidence:** {specific observation, measurement, or test result}
- **Affected Elements:** {UI element references, selectors, or screen locations}
- **Severity:** 0 (not a problem) | 1 (cosmetic) | 2 (minor barrier) | 3 (major barrier) | 4 (critical -- blocks access)
- **Remediation:** {specific fix with WCAG technique reference, e.g., "Apply ARIA-label per Technique ARIA14"}

The severity scale aligns with Nielsen's severity rating scale (Nielsen, 1994b) to enable cross-framework synthesis with /ux-heuristic-eval findings. Severity 0 in this sub-skill means "not an accessibility barrier" (equivalent to Nielsen's "not a usability problem" at severity 0); levels 1-4 maintain direct semantic correspondence between the two scales (1=cosmetic/minor, 2=minor barrier, 3=major barrier/usability problem, 4=critical/catastrophe). Note: While WCAG pass/fail status is a deterministic compliance check, the severity assignment (0-4) for each finding involves AI judgment about user impact and is classified as MEDIUM synthesis confidence (see Synthesis Hypothesis Confidence).

Microsoft Inclusive Design

Microsoft Inclusive Design methodology (Microsoft, 2016) complements WCAG compliance with a design-thinking approach that broadens the understanding of who benefits from accessible design.

Three Principles

Principle	Description	Application
Recognize exclusion	Identify who is being excluded by current design decisions and how	For each interaction pattern, identify users who cannot complete the task due to permanent, temporary, or situational impairments
Solve for one, extend to many	Design for a person in the most constrained scenario; the solution benefits everyone	Remediation recommendations target the permanent disability scenario; benefits to temporary and situational users are documented
Learn from diversity	People who adapt to exclusion develop expertise that informs better design	Persona Spectrum profiles include adaptation strategies observed in the disability community

Persona Spectrum Methodology

The Persona Spectrum maps each interaction pattern across three disability duration categories:

Duration	Definition	Example (Visual)	Example (Motor)	Example (Auditory)	Example (Cognitive)
Permanent	Long-term or lifelong disability	Blind user	Single arm user	Deaf user	Learning disability
Temporary	Short-term impairment due to injury, surgery, or condition	Post-cataract surgery	Arm in cast	Ear infection	Concussion
Situational	Context-dependent limitation due to environment or activity	Glare on screen outdoors	Carrying grocery bags	Loud restaurant	Distracted by children

For each interaction pattern evaluated, the agent produces a Persona Spectrum profile:

### Persona Spectrum: {Interaction Pattern Name}

**Interaction:** {description of the user task/action}

| Disability Type | Permanent | Temporary | Situational |
|----------------|-----------|-----------|-------------|
| **Visual** | {scenario} | {scenario} | {scenario} |
| **Motor** | {scenario} | {scenario} | {scenario} |
| **Auditory** | {scenario} | {scenario} | {scenario} |
| **Cognitive** | {scenario} | {scenario} | {scenario} |

**Exclusion Points:** {specific design decisions that create barriers}
**Design Opportunity:** {how solving for permanent extends to all}
**Current Compliance:** {WCAG success criteria relevant to this pattern}

Accessibility Testing Protocols

The evaluator applies the following testing protocols to produce evidence for WCAG findings:

Color Contrast Assessment

Test	Method	Threshold (AA)	Threshold (AAA)	WCAG Criterion
Normal text contrast	Compute luminance ratio of foreground/background colors	>= 4.5:1	>= 7:1	1.4.3 / 1.4.6
Large text contrast	Large text: >= 18pt or >= 14pt bold	>= 3:1	>= 4.5:1	1.4.3 / 1.4.6
UI component contrast	Non-text UI components and graphical objects	>= 3:1	>= 3:1	1.4.11
Focus indicator contrast	Focus visible indicator against adjacent colors	>= 3:1	>= 3:1	2.4.11 (new in 2.2)

Note on programmatic evaluation: In text-only mode (Figma MCP unavailable), the evaluator cannot compute exact contrast ratios from design artifacts. In this mode, the evaluator documents color values provided by the user and applies the ratio formula, or flags elements where contrast appears insufficient based on visual inspection of screenshots. Exact ratios require hex/RGB values.

Keyboard Navigation Audit

Test	Evaluation Criteria	WCAG Criterion
Tab order completeness	All interactive elements reachable via Tab/Shift+Tab	2.1.1 (A)
Focus visibility	Focus indicator visible on all focused elements	2.4.7 (AA), 2.4.11 (AA, new in 2.2)
No keyboard traps	Focus can be moved away from all components	2.1.2 (A)
Shortcut conflicts	Single character key shortcuts can be turned off or remapped	2.1.4 (A, new in 2.1)
Skip navigation	Skip-to-content mechanism available	2.4.1 (A)
Focus not obscured	Focused element not fully hidden by other content	2.4.12 (AA, new in 2.2)

Screen Reader Compatibility Review

Test	Evaluation Criteria	WCAG Criterion
Heading hierarchy	Logical heading structure (h1-h6) without skipped levels	1.3.1 (A)
ARIA landmarks	Main, navigation, banner, contentinfo landmarks present and correct	1.3.1 (A), 4.1.2 (A)
Alternative text	All non-decorative images have descriptive alt text; decorative images use empty alt	1.1.1 (A)
Form labels	All form controls have programmatically associated labels	1.3.1 (A), 3.3.2 (A)
Live regions	Dynamic content updates announced via ARIA live regions	4.1.3 (AA)
Error identification	Error messages programmatically associated with the invalid field	3.3.1 (A)

Cognitive Load Assessment

Test	Evaluation Criteria	WCAG Criterion
Reading level	Content appropriate for the target audience's reading level (evaluate via Flesch-Kincaid readability formula where text is available; otherwise AI-assisted reading level assessment -- flag as MEDIUM synthesis confidence per Synthesis Hypothesis Confidence)	3.1.5 (AAA)
Consistent navigation	Navigation mechanisms consistent across pages/screens	3.2.3 (AA)
Error prevention	Reversible submissions; confirmation for consequential actions	3.3.4 (AA), 3.3.6 (AAA)
Input assistance	Labels, instructions, and suggestions provided for user input	3.3.2 (A), 3.3.3 (AA)
Redundant entry	Information previously entered is auto-populated or selectable	3.3.7 (A, new in 2.2)
Consistent help	Help mechanisms in consistent relative order across pages	3.2.6 (A, new in 2.2)

Source: W3C (2023), WCAG 2.2 Recommendation. Microsoft (2016), Inclusive Design Toolkit. Persona Spectrum methodology adapted from Microsoft Inclusive Design Toolkit. Testing protocols derived from [skills/user-experience/SKILL.md -- Key Capabilities] ("Inclusive Design Evaluation -- WCAG 2.2 compliance and Microsoft Inclusive Design").

---

MCP Dependencies

Dependency Matrix

MCP Tool	Classification	Purpose	Fallback
Figma	REQ	Inspect design layers, extract color values for contrast computation, examine component states and responsive behavior, access design token definitions	Screenshot-input mode: user provides design screenshots as image inputs; color values provided manually for contrast computation
Storybook	ENH	Browse component stories to evaluate accessibility of interactive states, inspect component markup for ARIA implementation	Manual component inventory: user provides component list, markup samples, and documentation links
Context7	Available (current infrastructure)	Resolve and query WCAG 2.2 success criteria documentation, ARIA Authoring Practices Guide (APG), accessibility API documentation	WebSearch fallback per MCP-001 (mcp-tool-standards.md [Error Handling])

Figma Fallback: Screenshot-Input Mode

When the Figma MCP adapter is unavailable (current state -- adapter implementation is post-PROJ-022 scope), the evaluator operates in screenshot-input mode:

• Design evaluation is performed from user-provided screenshot images
• Color contrast ratios require manually provided hex/RGB color values (cannot be extracted programmatically from screenshots)
• Component state evaluation (hover, focus, active, disabled) requires separate screenshots per state
• Responsive behavior assessment requires screenshots at multiple breakpoints
• Limitations in screenshot-input mode:
  • Cannot inspect design layers or component hierarchy programmatically
  • Cannot extract exact color values for automated contrast ratio computation
  • Cannot evaluate interactive states (animations, transitions, dynamic content)
  • Cannot access design token definitions or systematic color palette information
• Output carries a degraded mode disclosure per P-022:

  [DEGRADED MODE] This output was produced without Figma MCP access.
  Input was provided via screenshot-input mode. Some features are reduced:
  - Cannot inspect design layers or component hierarchy programmatically
  - Cannot extract exact color values for automated contrast ratio computation
  - Cannot evaluate interactive states (animations, transitions, dynamic content)
  - Cannot access design token definitions or systematic color palette information

Context7 Usage

Per MCP-001 (.context/rules/mcp-tool-standards.md [Context7 Integration]), Context7 is used when the evaluation references external accessibility standards, ARIA patterns, or component library documentation by name:

Library/Framework	Usage
WCAG 2.2	Success criteria definitions, techniques, sufficient and advisory techniques references
ARIA Authoring Practices Guide (APG)	Design pattern implementations for accessible widgets (tabs, dialogs, menus, comboboxes)
ARIA specification	Role, state, and property definitions for assistive technology communication
Material UI / Radix UI / similar	Component accessibility API documentation for specific design system libraries

Protocol: call mcp__context7__resolve-library-id with the framework name, then mcp__context7__query-docs with the resolved ID and specific query. If Context7 returns no results, fall back to WebSearch per mcp-tool-standards.md [Error Handling].

Source: MCP dependency matrix from [skills/user-experience/SKILL.md -- MCP Integration Architecture] (/ux-inclusive-design row showing Figma REQ, Storybook ENH) and [skills/user-experience/rules/mcp-coordination.md -- MCP Dependency Matrix], [skills/user-experience/rules/mcp-coordination.md -- Degraded Mode Behavior].

---

Output Specification

Output Location

skills/ux-inclusive-design/output/{engagement-id}/ux-inclusive-evaluator-{topic-slug}.md

Where:

• {engagement-id} follows the pattern UX-{NNNN} (e.g., UX-0001)
• {topic-slug} is a kebab-case descriptor of the evaluated interface or component (e.g., checkout-flow, form-components, navigation-system)

Required Output Sections

Section	Level	Content
Executive Summary	L0	Conformance level achieved (A/AA/AAA/none); critical violation count by principle; Persona Spectrum coverage summary; top 3-5 remediation priorities for stakeholders and cross-framework synthesis input
Engagement Context	L1	Product description, target users, target conformance level, input artifacts (design screenshots, component inventory, markup), MCP status
WCAG 2.2 Compliance Audit	L1	Full success criteria evaluation organized by principle (POUR): per-criterion status (PASS/FAIL/N/A), evidence, affected elements, severity (0-4), and remediation with technique references
Color Contrast Analysis	L1	Per-element contrast ratio measurements with foreground/background values, computed ratio, target threshold, and pass/fail status
Keyboard Navigation Audit	L1	Tab order analysis, focus visibility assessment, keyboard trap detection, shortcut conflict identification
Screen Reader Compatibility	L1	Heading hierarchy, ARIA landmark review, alternative text audit, form label association, live region evaluation, error identification
Cognitive Load Assessment	L1	Reading level analysis, navigation consistency, error prevention mechanisms, input assistance evaluation
Persona Spectrum Analysis	L1	Per-interaction-pattern Persona Spectrum profiles mapping permanent, temporary, and situational disability scenarios with exclusion points and design opportunities
Remediation Priorities	L1	Prioritized remediation list with WCAG criterion reference, severity, effort estimate, impact, and design recommendation
Strategic Implications	L2	Organizational accessibility maturity assessment, legal compliance gap analysis, accessibility debt quantification, inclusive design adoption roadmap, cross-product patterns
Synthesis Judgments Summary	L1	Each AI judgment call listed for synthesis confidence gate compliance (see note below)
Handoff Data	L1	Structured data for downstream sub-skills and cross-framework synthesis: WCAG findings with criterion references, Persona Spectrum profiles, conformance result, remediation priorities

Synthesis Judgments Summary requirements: This section MUST list every AI-generated judgment (Persona Spectrum customization, severity assignment, remediation priority ranking, cognitive load assessment) with a confidence classification (HIGH, MEDIUM, LOW) and a one-line rationale. This enables downstream consumers (including the ux-orchestrator synthesis gate) to assess which findings are strongly supported versus which require additional validation. The format follows the synthesis judgments pattern established in skills/user-experience/rules/synthesis-validation.md.

Templates

Two templates support the agent's output production:

Template	Path	Purpose
Persona Spectrum Template	skills/ux-inclusive-design/templates/persona-spectrum-template.md [PLANNED: Wave 3 Phase 2]	Microsoft Inclusive Design Persona Spectrum worksheet with permanent/temporary/situational mapping
Accessibility Report Template	skills/ux-inclusive-design/templates/accessibility-report-template.md [PLANNED: Wave 3 Phase 2]	WCAG 2.2 compliance audit report with per-principle sections and remediation tracking

Source: Output location from [skills/user-experience/SKILL.md -- Available Agents] and ORCHESTRATION.yaml pipeline-wave3 phase-2 artifacts (persona-spectrum-template.md, accessibility-report-template.md).

---

Routing

Trigger Keywords

Keyword	Routing Context
accessibility	Direct match -- primary trigger
WCAG	Direct match
WCAG 2.2	Direct match
ARIA	Direct match
screen reader	Direct match
contrast	In combination with UX/design/accessibility context
cognitive load	In combination with accessibility context
inclusive design	Direct match
a11y	Direct match
persona spectrum	Direct match

Lifecycle-Stage Routing Integration

This sub-skill is routed to by the ux-orchestrator in the following lifecycle-stage scenarios:

Stage	User Intent	Route Condition
Any stage	"Check accessibility"	No qualification needed -- direct route to /ux-inclusive-design per [skills/user-experience/SKILL.md -- Lifecycle-Stage Routing]
Any stage	"Make this accessible"	No qualification needed -- routes directly; source: [skills/user-experience/SKILL.md -- Common Intent-to-Route Resolution]
During design	"Building component system"	In "Build to Evaluate" sequence: routes to /ux-atomic-design first, then /ux-inclusive-design for accessibility evaluation of the component inventory
Any stage	After /ux-atomic-design completion	Canonical sequence continuation: component inventory available as upstream handoff artifact

Wave Gating

This sub-skill is in Wave 3 (Design System). It requires Wave 2 completion before deployment:

Entry criteria: Wave 2: launched product with analytics OR 1 completed Lean UX hypothesis cycle.

Bypass condition: Storybook already in use (skip Lean UX prerequisite for Atomic Design). Note: this bypass condition is defined for the Wave 3 pair (/ux-atomic-design and /ux-inclusive-design); the bypass allows teams with an existing component system to proceed to Wave 3 without completing Lean UX cycles.

Source: Routing integration from [skills/user-experience/rules/ux-routing-rules.md -- Stage Routing Table] and [skills/user-experience/SKILL.md -- Lifecycle-Stage Routing]. Wave assignment from [skills/user-experience/SKILL.md -- Wave Architecture].

---

Cross-Framework Integration

Upstream Inputs

This sub-skill receives context from other sub-skills when invoked as part of a multi-sub-skill workflow:

From Sub-Skill	Handoff Artifact	Key Fields	Usage
/ux-atomic-design	Component inventory with Storybook references	Component taxonomy (atoms, molecules, organisms, templates, pages), Storybook story references, design token definitions	Component inventory provides the evaluation scope for accessibility audit; Storybook references enable component-level accessibility testing; design tokens inform color contrast evaluation
/ux-heuristic-eval	Severity-rated findings with accessibility subset	Finding ID, heuristic violated (especially H4: Consistency and Standards, H7: Flexibility and Efficiency of Use, H10: Help and Documentation), severity (0-4), affected screen/flow	Heuristic findings related to accessibility (keyboard navigation, error visibility, consistent interface) provide context for targeted WCAG evaluation; severity ratings enable cross-framework convergence detection

Downstream Handoffs

This sub-skill produces artifacts that feed into cross-framework synthesis via the Jerry handoff protocol (docs/schemas/handoff-v2.schema.json).

To Sub-Skill/Consumer	Handoff Artifact	Key Fields	Trigger
ux-orchestrator (synthesis)	WCAG findings + Persona Spectrum analysis	Conformance result, WCAG findings with criterion references, persona spectrum profiles, remediation priorities	After audit completion; findings feed cross-framework synthesis for convergence detection with heuristic eval and other sub-skill outputs
/eng-team (cross-skill)	Accessibility requirements for security integration	WCAG AA violations, ARIA implementation gaps, keyboard trap findings	When engineering team needs accessibility requirements for secure frontend patterns (source: [skills/user-experience/SKILL.md -- Cross-Skill Integration], /eng-team integration)

Handoff threshold: Only findings with severity >= 2 (minor barrier or above) are included in cross-framework synthesis handoffs. Severity 0 (not a problem) and severity 1 (cosmetic) findings remain in the full audit report but are excluded from synthesis signal extraction to prevent noise in convergence detection.

Canonical Multi-Skill Workflow Sequences

This sub-skill participates in the following canonical sequences:

Sequence	Skills Involved	This Sub-Skill's Role
Build to Evaluate	/ux-atomic-design then /ux-inclusive-design	Receives component inventory from Atomic Design; evaluates each component level (atoms through pages) for WCAG compliance and Persona Spectrum coverage
Evaluate to Diagnose to Measure	/ux-heuristic-eval then /ux-inclusive-design (accessibility subset) then /ux-behavior-design	Heuristic eval identifies accessibility-related findings; inclusive design provides detailed WCAG audit for those areas; behavior design diagnoses why accessibility barriers cause user drop-off

Source: Handoff data contracts from [skills/user-experience/rules/ux-routing-rules.md -- Handoff Data Contracts] and [skills/user-experience/SKILL.md -- Cross-Sub-Skill Handoff Data] ("/ux-atomic-design -> /ux-inclusive-design: Component inventory with Storybook references"). Canonical sequences from [skills/user-experience/SKILL.md -- Canonical Multi-Skill Workflow Sequences] ("Build to Evaluate: /ux-atomic-design then /ux-inclusive-design").

---

Synthesis Hypothesis Confidence

Inclusive Design outputs include synthesis hypotheses that carry confidence classifications per the synthesis validation protocol.

Synthesis Step	Typical Confidence	Rationale
Persona Spectrum customization	MEDIUM	Persona Spectrums are heuristic models (Microsoft, 2016), not empirical profiles; the mapping of permanent/temporary/situational scenarios involves AI judgment about plausible user contexts rather than observed user data
Severity assignment (0-4 scale)	MEDIUM	Severity ratings involve AI interpretation of user impact against the Nielsen severity scale (Nielsen, 1994b); while WCAG pass/fail is deterministic, mapping a failure to a 0-4 severity level requires judgment about how much the barrier impedes real user tasks -- no objective algorithm exists for this mapping
Remediation priority ranking	MEDIUM	Prioritization requires AI judgment about relative user impact severity, affected population size, and estimated implementation effort (W3C, 2023; Microsoft, 2016); these factors are context-dependent and cannot be deterministically computed from WCAG criteria alone
Cognitive load assessment	MEDIUM	Reading level evaluation and information density assessments are heuristic (Nielsen, 1994b); readability formulas provide approximate guidance but the determination of whether content is "appropriate for the target audience" (WCAG 3.1.5) requires AI judgment about audience characteristics

Gate enforcement:

• MEDIUM outputs: Include a "Validation Required" section. Design recommendations derived from Persona Spectrum analysis, severity assignments, remediation priority rankings, and cognitive load assessments are withheld until validation against real user observation, assistive technology user testing, or accessibility expert review is provided. Persona Spectrum profiles serve as structured hypotheses about who is excluded, not as validated user research findings. Severity and priority assignments serve as structured triage guidance, not as definitive impact measurements.

Note on WCAG findings confidence: WCAG 2.2 success criteria evaluations (pass/fail per criterion) do not go through the synthesis hypothesis confidence gate because they are deterministic compliance checks, not AI-generated abstractions. A WCAG criterion either passes or fails based on measurable criteria (W3C, 2023). However, the severity assignment (0-4) for each finding involves AI judgment and is classified as MEDIUM confidence in the table above. Persona Spectrum analysis, by contrast, is inherently interpretive and always receives MEDIUM confidence.

Confidence upgrade path: Persona Spectrum customization, severity assignment, and remediation priority confidence can increase to HIGH only through convergence with a second framework in cross-framework synthesis (per skills/user-experience/rules/synthesis-validation.md [Convergence Thresholds]: moderate convergence = 2 frameworks identifying the same problem with supporting evidence = HIGH). For example, if Persona Spectrum analysis identifies "situational visual impairment: glare on screen outdoors" as an exclusion point AND Heuristic Eval independently identifies low contrast as a severity-3 finding for the same component, the convergent finding receives HIGH synthesis confidence. Similarly, severity and priority assignments that align with quantitative HEART Metrics data (e.g., low Task Success rate confirms a severity-4 barrier) receive HIGH confidence through cross-framework corroboration.

Source: Confidence classifications from [skills/user-experience/rules/synthesis-validation.md § Sub-Skill Synthesis Output Map] ("/ux-inclusive-design Persona Spectrum customization MEDIUM"). Gate enforcement from [skills/user-experience/SKILL.md § Synthesis Hypothesis Validation]. Severity scale from Nielsen (1994b). Convergence upgrade thresholds from [skills/user-experience/rules/synthesis-validation.md § Convergence Thresholds] ("Moderate convergence: 2 frameworks identify the same UX problem with supporting evidence = HIGH").

---

Constitutional Compliance

All agents in this sub-skill adhere to the Jerry Constitution v1.0:

Principle	Requirement	Consequence of Violation
P-003	NEVER spawn recursive subagents -- worker agent, no Task tool access	Agent hierarchy violation; uncontrolled token consumption
P-020	NEVER override user decisions on target conformance level or remediation priority	Unauthorized action; trust erosion
P-022	NEVER present WCAG pass/fail status without evidence; NEVER inflate conformance claims without criterion-level verification	Governance undermined; legal compliance assessment invalidated
P-001	NEVER present accessibility findings without WCAG success criteria references or Persona Spectrum evidence	Unreliable outputs; unfounded compliance claims propagate downstream
P-002	NEVER leave accessibility audit results or persona spectrum analyses in transient context only -- persist to files	Context rot vulnerability; artifacts lost on session compaction

Per-agent enforcement: The ux-inclusive-evaluator agent declares:

• constitution.principles_applied: P-003, P-020, P-022, P-001, P-002 in skills/ux-inclusive-design/agents/ux-inclusive-evaluator.governance.yaml
• capabilities.forbidden_actions: 3 entries in NPT-009 format referencing the constitutional triplet
• disallowedTools: [Task] in skills/ux-inclusive-design/agents/ux-inclusive-evaluator.md frontmatter

AI-Augmented Analysis Limitations

The Inclusive Design evaluator agent operates as an AI-augmented analysis tool. The following limitations apply to all outputs and MUST be disclosed per P-022 (no deception):

• WCAG evaluation is best-effort from available artifacts. Full WCAG compliance testing requires manual testing with assistive technologies (screen readers, switch devices, voice control), automated testing tools (axe-core, Lighthouse, WAVE), and user testing with people who have disabilities. AI-based evaluation from design artifacts or screenshots provides a structured initial audit but does not replace comprehensive accessibility testing.
• Persona Spectrum profiles are heuristic models. The mapping of permanent, temporary, and situational disability scenarios is based on the Microsoft Inclusive Design Toolkit methodology and general knowledge of disability contexts. Real Persona Spectrums should be informed by interviews with people who have disabilities and observation of actual assistive technology usage.
• Color contrast ratios are input-dependent. In screenshot-input mode (Figma MCP unavailable), exact contrast ratios require user-provided hex/RGB values. Visual estimation from screenshots is not precise enough for compliance determination.
• Screen reader compatibility is structural, not experiential. The evaluator assesses semantic HTML structure and ARIA implementation from markup or descriptions, but cannot simulate the actual screen reader experience across different assistive technology combinations (JAWS, NVDA, VoiceOver with different browsers).
• Always validate with real assistive technology users. Accessibility audit outputs should be confirmed through manual testing with assistive technologies and, where possible, user testing with people who have disabilities before making compliance claims.

---

Registration

This sub-skill follows a parent-routed registration model. Sub-skills are not independently registered in CLAUDE.md or mandatory-skill-usage.md because they are routed through the parent /user-experience orchestrator (ux-orchestrator). This is an explicit exception to the H-26 registration requirement (parent-routed model): parent skills own the CLAUDE.md and mandatory-skill-usage.md registration; sub-skills are discovered and dispatched by the parent orchestrator's internal routing logic.

Registration Point	Status	Detail
CLAUDE.md skill table	Registered via parent	/user-experience is registered in CLAUDE.md; sub-skills are not independently listed
mandatory-skill-usage.md trigger map	Routed via parent	The /user-experience trigger map row includes "accessibility" and "inclusive design" as positive keywords (H-22); requests matching these keywords route to the parent skill, which dispatches to this sub-skill
AGENTS.md agent registry	Registered	ux-inclusive-evaluator is listed in AGENTS.md under the User-Experience Skill Agents section
Parent SKILL.md agent table	Registered	ux-inclusive-evaluator is listed in skills/user-experience/SKILL.md [Available Agents]

H-26 parent-routed model rationale: Independent registration of sub-skills would create duplicate trigger map entries and ambiguous routing (AP-02 Bag of Triggers). The parent orchestrator owns lifecycle-stage routing logic and dispatches to the correct sub-skill based on triage qualification, not keyword matching alone. Sub-skill agents are registered in AGENTS.md for discoverability but routing flows through the parent.

---

Deployment Status

Wave 3 Sub-Skill -- Planned. This sub-skill is part of Wave 3 (Design System) of PROJ-022. The companion agent file (skills/ux-inclusive-design/agents/ux-inclusive-evaluator.md) and governance file (skills/ux-inclusive-design/agents/ux-inclusive-evaluator.governance.yaml) are planned for creation during Wave 3 implementation of PROJ-022 EPIC-004. The SKILL.md itself is complete and specifies the methodology, output format, and routing integration that the agent will implement.

---

Quick Reference

Common Workflows

Need	Command Example
WCAG 2.2 AA compliance audit	"Audit this page for WCAG 2.2 AA compliance"
Color contrast check	"Check the color contrast on our form components"
Screen reader compatibility	"Review this interface for screen reader compatibility"
Persona Spectrum analysis	"Map the persona spectrum for our checkout flow"
Keyboard navigation audit	"Evaluate keyboard navigation on the settings page"
Cognitive load assessment	"Assess cognitive load on the onboarding flow"
Component accessibility	"Evaluate accessibility of our atomic design components"
Legal compliance review	"Review our product for EAA accessibility requirements"

Agent Selection Hints

Keywords	Routes To
accessibility, WCAG, ARIA, screen reader, contrast, cognitive load, inclusive, a11y, persona spectrum	ux-inclusive-evaluator
heuristic, usability, Nielsen, severity, inspection, evaluation	/ux-heuristic-eval (not this sub-skill)
atomic design, atoms, molecules, organisms, components, design tokens, Storybook	/ux-atomic-design (not this sub-skill)
HEART, metrics, measurement, GSM, happiness, engagement	/ux-heart-metrics (not this sub-skill)
lean UX, hypothesis, experiment, build-measure-learn	/ux-lean-ux (not this sub-skill)
behavior, Fogg, B=MAP, motivation, ability, prompt	/ux-behavior-design (not this sub-skill)

---

References

Source	Content	Path
Parent SKILL.md	Sub-skill scope, wave architecture, routing, MCP dependencies, synthesis protocol	skills/user-experience/SKILL.md
Agent definition	Agent frontmatter, identity, expertise, guardrails	skills/ux-inclusive-design/agents/ux-inclusive-evaluator.md [PLANNED: Wave 3]
Agent governance	Tool tier, forbidden actions, output validation, constitutional compliance	skills/ux-inclusive-design/agents/ux-inclusive-evaluator.governance.yaml [PLANNED: Wave 3]
UX routing rules	Lifecycle-stage routing, handoff data contracts, common intent resolution	skills/user-experience/rules/ux-routing-rules.md
MCP coordination	Figma REQ dependency, degraded mode behavior, Context7 usage	skills/user-experience/rules/mcp-coordination.md
Synthesis validation	Confidence gate protocol, per-sub-skill confidence map	skills/user-experience/rules/synthesis-validation.md
Wave progression	Wave 3 entry criteria, signoff requirements	skills/user-experience/rules/wave-progression.md
CI checks	P-003 enforcement, sub-skill validation gates	skills/user-experience/rules/ci-checks.md
Inclusive design methodology rules	WCAG evaluation rules, Persona Spectrum methodology rules	skills/ux-inclusive-design/rules/inclusive-design-methodology-rules.md [PLANNED: Wave 3 Phase 2]
MCP runbook	Figma integration operational procedures for accessibility evaluation	skills/ux-inclusive-design/rules/mcp-runbook.md [PLANNED: Wave 3 Phase 2]
Persona Spectrum template	Microsoft Inclusive Design Persona Spectrum worksheet	skills/ux-inclusive-design/templates/persona-spectrum-template.md [PLANNED: Wave 3 Phase 2]
Accessibility report template	WCAG 2.2 compliance audit report template	skills/ux-inclusive-design/templates/accessibility-report-template.md [PLANNED: Wave 3 Phase 2]
Skill standards	H-25/H-26 skill structure requirements	.context/rules/skill-standards.md
Agent development standards	H-34 dual-file architecture, tool tiers, handoff protocol	.context/rules/agent-development-standards.md
Quality enforcement	Quality gate thresholds, criticality levels, strategy catalog	.context/rules/quality-enforcement.md
Handoff schema	Canonical handoff schema v2	docs/schemas/handoff-v2.schema.json
Agent governance schema	Governance YAML validation schema	docs/schemas/agent-governance-v1.schema.json

Requirements Traceability

Source	Content	Path
PROJ-022 PLAN.md	Project plan: sub-skill scope, wave assignment, acceptance criteria, implementation phases	projects/PROJ-022-user-experience-skill/PLAN.md
EPIC-004 (Wave 3 Deployment)	Parent work item for Wave 3 sub-skill implementation including this sub-skill	PROJ-022 EPIC-004 in projects/PROJ-022-user-experience-skill/WORKTRACKER.md
ORCHESTRATION.yaml	Orchestration plan governing the build sequence for this sub-skill	projects/PROJ-022-user-experience-skill/orchestration/ux-skill-build-20260303-001/ORCHESTRATION.yaml

External References

Source	Citation
W3C (2023)	Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. W3C Recommendation. 2023-10-05.
W3C (2023b)	ARIA Authoring Practices Guide (APG). W3C Working Group Note.
Microsoft (2016)	Microsoft Inclusive Design Toolkit. Persona Spectrum methodology. microsoft.com/design/inclusive.
Nielsen, 1994b	Nielsen, J. (1994). "Severity Ratings for Usability Problems." Nielsen Norman Group. Severity scale: 0 (not a problem) to 4 (usability catastrophe).
US DOJ (2024)	"Guidance on Web Accessibility and the ADA." U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division.
European Parliament (2019)	Directive (EU) 2019/882 -- European Accessibility Act (EAA). Effective June 2025.
Section 508	Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C. 794d). ICT accessibility standards for US federal agencies.

---

Sub-Skill Version: 1.1.0
Parent Skill: /user-experience v1.0.0
Constitutional Compliance: Jerry Constitution v1.0
Wave: 3 (Design System)
SSOT: skills/user-experience/SKILL.md
Project: PROJ-022 User Experience Skill
Created: 2026-03-04
Revised: 2026-03-04 (iter2 quality gate)