| # Accessibility Regression Loop |
|
|
| ## Objective |
|
|
| Turn newly introduced accessibility failures into small, verified fixes while preserving a human review path for criteria that automation cannot judge. |
|
|
| ## Use This When |
|
|
| - A web or app surface changes frequently. |
| - Automated accessibility checks and keyboard or screen-reader smoke tests already exist. |
| - The team wants evidence attached to each fix instead of a periodic audit backlog. |
|
|
| Do not treat an automated pass as proof of full WCAG conformance. The loop handles detectable regressions; people still judge usability, semantics, and assistive-technology behavior. |
|
|
| ## Trigger |
|
|
| - Event: an accessibility check fails on a pull request or deployment preview. |
| - Schedule: nightly scan of high-value user journeys. |
| - Manual bootstrap: "repair the accessibility regression in <route or component>." |
|
|
| ## Intake |
|
|
| - Failing rule, selector, route, viewport, browser, and test artifact. |
| - The changed diff, component ownership, design-system guidance, and prior baseline. |
| - Manual-test checklist for keyboard order, focus behavior, names, roles, states, contrast, motion, and zoom. |
|
|
| ## Agents |
|
|
| - Reproducer: confirms the failure on the reported route and viewport. |
| - Fixer: changes the smallest component or token responsible. |
| - Verifier: reruns automated checks and the focused interaction test. |
| - Accessibility reviewer: handles ambiguous semantics and manual criteria. |
|
|
| ## Workspace And Permissions |
|
|
| - Use a branch or worktree based on the failing commit. |
| - Allow component, style, test, and documentation edits within the affected surface. |
| - Disallow suppressing rules, hiding content from assistive technology, lowering thresholds, or rewriting shared tokens without owner review. |
|
|
| ## Durable State |
|
|
| - Rule ID, route, viewport, affected users, before/after result, screenshots or trace, commands, and manual-review status. |
|
|
| ## Loop Steps |
|
|
| 1. Reproduce the exact failing rule and interaction. |
| 1. Classify whether the failure is automatable, manual, or mixed. |
| 1. Inspect the changed component and its design-system primitive. |
| 1. Apply the smallest semantic, focus, label, contrast, motion, or target-size fix. |
| 1. Rerun the focused check, adjacent component tests, and relevant user journey. |
| 1. Route manual criteria to an accessibility reviewer with a concise evidence packet. |
| 1. Persist the receipt and stop when both automated and required human gates pass. |
|
|
| ## Verification Gates |
|
|
| - The original rule passes at the same route, viewport, and browser. |
| - Keyboard order, visible focus, accessible name, role, and state remain coherent for the affected interaction. |
| - No rule is disabled or threshold weakened to obtain the pass. |
| - Required manual checks are signed off by a named reviewer. |
|
|
| ## Budget And Exit |
|
|
| - Max retries: 3 fix attempts. |
| - Max runtime: 90 minutes before handoff. |
| - Stop on verified repair, inability to reproduce, design-system conflict, or a failure that requires product judgment. |
|
|
| ## Escalation |
|
|
| Escalate for ambiguous content alternatives, complex screen-reader behavior, cross-product token changes, legal conformance claims, or any fix that materially changes the user flow. |
|
|
| ## Loop Instruction |
|
|
| ```text |
| Repair the accessibility regression reported for <route/component>. |
| Reproduce the exact rule, browser, viewport, and interaction before editing. |
| Make the smallest standards-aligned fix and rerun the focused automated check plus |
| the keyboard/focus smoke test. Never disable a rule or hide content to obtain a pass. |
| Record before/after evidence and escalate manual WCAG judgments to <reviewer>. |
| ``` |
|
|
| ## Worked Example |
|
|
| A navigation redesign removes visible focus from mobile menu links. The loop reproduces the failed focus test at 390 px, traces the regression to a shared outline token, patches the menu component without changing the global token, reruns the keyboard path and automated scan, and records a short video for human review. |
|
|
| ## Failure Modes |
|
|
| - Equating zero automated violations with accessibility. |
| - Fixing one viewport while breaking another. |
| - Adding `aria-*` attributes that conflict with native semantics. |
| - Hiding problematic content from the accessibility tree. |
| - Skipping the manual check because the scanner is green. |
|
|
| ## Example Contract |
|
|
| - [`examples/accessibility-regression-loop.json`](../examples/accessibility-regression-loop.json) |
|
|
| ## References |
|
|
| - [Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2](https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG22/) - Normative, testable accessibility criteria with both automated and human evaluation. |
| - [Understanding Test Rules for WCAG 2.2](https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/understanding-act-rules.html) - Explains the role and limits of automated accessibility rules. |
|
|
