The problem

Accessibility feedback often arrives as a chaotic mix of interview notes, support tickets, and vague vendor claims. Manually tracking which issues are current, which are fixed, and how they map to specific standards without losing source traceability is a massive time sink for product and QA teams.

What it does

• Inventories scattered accessibility feedback from interviews, tickets, and audit notes into a structured source register.
• Maps reported barriers to specific product areas while preserving the link to original evidence.
• Identifies contradictions between vendor claims and actual user reports or test observations.
• Flags missing metadata like browser versions, assistive technologies, or viewport sizes needed for reproduction.
• Generates a review-ready handoff packet with prioritized evidence gaps and specific questions for reviewers.

Why this beats prompting it yourself

General prompts often hallucinate compliance status or overstate evidence as verified facts. This skill enforces a strict workflow that separates digital and physical access, labels every statement by evidence type, and prevents the agent from making independent legal or WCAG conformance claims.

Use cases

• Organizing a stack of customer support tickets and user interview notes into a traceable developer backlog.
• Reviewing vendor accessibility claims against reported bugs and missing test reports.
• Preparing a structured handoff for a third-party accessibility auditor or internal QA team.
• Surfacing contradictions between historical audit findings and unverified fix claims in release notes.

Known limitations

This tool cannot browse live websites, inspect code, or run screen reader tests. It relies entirely on provided text, screenshots, or report excerpts.