keyboard-a11y-tester

Projects that follow the best practices below can voluntarily self-certify and show that they've achieved an Open Source Security Foundation (OpenSSF) best practices badge.

There is no set of practices that can guarantee that software will never have defects or vulnerabilities; even formal methods can fail if the specifications or assumptions are wrong. Nor is there any set of practices that can guarantee that a project will sustain a healthy and well-functioning development community. However, following best practices can help improve the results of projects. For example, some practices enable multi-person review before release, which can both help find otherwise hard-to-find technical vulnerabilities and help build trust and a desire for repeated interaction among developers from different companies. To earn a badge, all MUST and MUST NOT criteria must be met, all SHOULD criteria must be met OR be unmet with justification, and all SUGGESTED criteria must be met OR unmet (we want them considered at least). If you want to enter justification text as a generic comment, instead of being a rationale that the situation is acceptable, start the text block with '//' followed by a space. Feedback is welcome via the GitHub site as issues or pull requests There is also a mailing list for general discussion.

We gladly provide the information in several locales, however, if there is any conflict or inconsistency between the translations, the English version is the authoritative version.
If this is your project, please show your baseline badge status on your project page! The baseline badge status looks like this: Baseline badge level for project 13561 is in_progress Here is how to embed the baseline badge:
You can show your baseline badge status by embedding this in your markdown file:
[![OpenSSF Baseline](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/13561/baseline)](https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/13561)
or by embedding this in your HTML:
<a href="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/13561"><img src="https://www.bestpractices.dev/projects/13561/baseline"></a>


These are the Baseline Level 3 criteria. These are criteria version v2026.02.19.

Baseline Series: Baseline Level 1 Baseline Level 2 Baseline Level 3

        

 Basics

  • General

    Note that other projects may use the same name.

    An AI-assisted web accessibility tester that behaves like two W3C personas at once: a keyboard-only user ("Ade") and a screen-reader user ("Lakshmi"). It drives a page keyboard-only, records what happens at every focus stop, and emits evidence-linked findings mapped to specific WCAG success criteria — against any website.

    Please use SPDX license expression format; examples include "Apache-2.0", "BSD-2-Clause", "BSD-3-Clause", "GPL-2.0+", "LGPL-3.0+", "MIT", and "(BSD-2-Clause OR Ruby)". Do not include single quotes or double quotes.
    If there is more than one language, list them as comma-separated values (spaces optional) and sort them from most to least used. If there is a long list, please list at least the first three most common ones. If there is no language (e.g., this is a documentation-only or test-only project), use the single character "-". Please use a conventional capitalization for each language, e.g., "JavaScript".
    The Common Platform Enumeration (CPE) is a structured naming scheme for information technology systems, software, and packages. It is used in a number of systems and databases when reporting vulnerabilities.

    keyboard-a11y-tester

    An AI-assisted web accessibility tester that behaves like two W3C personas at once: a
    keyboard-only user ("Ade") and a screen-reader user ("Lakshmi"). It drives a page
    keyboard-only, records what happens at every focus stop, and emits evidence-linked
    findings mapped to specific WCAG success criteria — against any website. Both
    personas run in the same pass by default; a --persona flag restricts to just one.

    It has two layers:

    • a deterministic runner (scripts/runner.mjs) that owns the mechanical, reproducible
      work — driving the page keyboard-only, capturing a per-step trace + screenshots, and
      computing the machine-decidable checks for both personas;
    • an AI-judgment layer — the invoking agent — that reads the trace/screenshots/census
      and judges what rules can't (task completion, logical focus/reading order, form
      quality, announcement quality). See SKILL.md for how an agent drives it.

    Standalone and portable: it depends only on playwright, yaml, pngjs, pixelmatch,
    and @guidepup/virtual-screen-reader, needs no bundled test cases, and writes all output
    to a per-user temp directory (never into this folder). The screen-reader persona
    never drives a real screen reader (NVDA/VoiceOver) — see "Screen-reader detection" below.

    Documentation: docs/usage.md (setup, dependencies, quick start,
    CAPTCHAs) · docs/interface.md (full CLI reference, output file
    schema, WCAG checks table).

    Quick start

    As a Claude Code plugin — register this repo as a plugin marketplace, then install it:

    /plugin marketplace add ezufelt/keyboard-a11y-tester
/plugin install keyboard-a11y-tester@ezufelt

    The first command registers this repo as a marketplace (named ezufelt, per
    .claude-plugin/marketplace.json); the second installs the plugin. Once installed, the
    skill in SKILL.md becomes available to the agent.

    As a standalone clone — clone the repo and install its dependencies:

    git clone https://github.com/ezufelt/keyboard-a11y-tester.git
cd keyboard-a11y-tester
npm install
npx playwright install chromium

    Then drive it directly (see Run against any URL).

    Requirements & dependencies

    Requires Node.js ≥ 20 and Chromium (via Playwright), plus five small npm dependencies —
    no build step. Run node scripts/setup-check.mjs to verify both before your first run.

    See docs/usage.md for the full dependency
    table, licensing credit for @guidepup/virtual-screen-reader, and setup instructions.

    Run against any URL (no test file needed)

    # quick unattended blind Tab-crawl of the start page, per viewport
node scripts/runner.mjs --url https://example.com

# a full scenario, driven live by the agent one keystroke at a time
node scripts/runner.mjs serve --url https://example.com --goal "find the pricing page" \

     --viewport desktop --port 9400
#   → prints:  READY <session-dir>   (under the system temp dir)
node scripts/runner.mjs observe <session-dir>
node scripts/runner.mjs step    <session-dir> --press Tab      # one keystroke; prints observation
node scripts/runner.mjs step    <session-dir> --press Enter
node scripts/runner.mjs step    <session-dir> --type "hello@example.com"
node scripts/runner.mjs finish  <session-dir>                  # writes trace + findings
node scripts/runner.mjs stop    <session-dir>

    See docs/usage.md for the full
    quick-start walkthrough, and docs/interface.md for every CLI flag and
    the complete output file schema.

    Authenticated runs

    Pages behind a login can't be tested with a fresh, logged-out browser. Pass a Playwright
    storageState JSON file with --storage-state <file> to start the browser with its cookies
    and localStorage already loaded (e.g. an already-logged-in session). Generate one with
    context.storageState({ path: 'auth.json' }) or npx playwright codegen --save-storage=auth.json <url>.
    The file is validated (exists, parses as JSON, and looks like a real storageState export —
    i.e. has cookies/origins arrays) before the browser launches — a missing or malformed file
    fails the run immediately rather than silently testing the logged-out site. In serve mode
    it's applied once at launch and the session browser keeps the state alive for every subsequent
    step.

    A storageState file holds live session cookies/tokens — treat it as a secret. Don't commit
    it; .gitignore already excludes auth.json, storageState.json, and *storage-state*.json,
    but a differently-named file won't be caught automatically.

    What the runner does (deterministic layer)

    Playwright (full Chromium, new-headless + SwiftShader for real pixels) drives the page with
    only the keyboard — it never calls .click() or .focus(); if a control is only
    reachable by pointer, that is itself a finding. It drops to a raw CDP session for the
    accessibility tree (Accessibility.getPartialAXTree), the ground truth for name/role/state.
    At startup it fails fast if :focus-visible does not fire on CDP-driven key events
    (every focus-indicator check would otherwise be invalid) — skipped entirely when
    --persona screen-reader is passed, since that persona has no pixel/focus-ring work.

    Checks are evaluated per focus stop the persona actually visits (keyboard persona) or
    against a page-wide structural census (screen-reader persona) — this is scenario
    testing, not an exhaustive page audit. Conformance target: AA is pass/fail, AAA is
    informative.

    WCAG Level Persona Check
    2.4.7 AA keyboard Focus indicator present
    2.4.13 AAA (informative) keyboard Focus indicator strength
    1.4.1 AA keyboard Indicator is not colour-only
    2.1.2 AA keyboard Keyboard trap
    2.4.1 AA keyboard No skip link
    2.4.3 AA keyboard Positive tabindex
    3.2.1 AA keyboard Context change from focus alone
    3.3.2 AA keyboard File input named only by the user-agent default ("Choose File")
    4.1.2 AA keyboard Focusable control with no accessible name
    1.1.1 AA screen-reader Missing alt text/aria-label
    1.3.1 AA screen-reader Heading level skip
    1.3.1 AA screen-reader Duplicate, unlabeled landmark roles
    4.1.2 AA screen-reader Interactive control announced as a bare role
    4.1.3 AA screen-reader Declared live region that never announced anything

    See docs/interface.md for the authoritative version of
    this table (full check descriptions) and the W3C persona references.

    Output

    Everything is written under a per-user temp dir (${TMPDIR}/keyboard-a11y-tester/…, or
    --out): a trace.json (per-step evidence), deterministic-findings.json (WCAG findings),
    screen-reader-census.json (screen-reader persona), and cropped screenshots/step_NNNN.png
    per viewport. See docs/interface.md for the
    complete directory layout and field-by-field schema of every output file.

    Focus-visible detection (2.4.7 AA presence + 2.4.13 AAA strength)

    Presence (AA) uses two independent signals, so a faint-but-real indicator is never
    missed:

    1. the focused element's computed style declares an outline or box-shadow (ground
      truth — recorded in the trace as computed_focus_style), or
    2. pixels change on focus (catches background/colour indicators with no outline).

    Either one means the indicator is present → AA pass. Pixel diffing compares the focused
    frame to a scroll-aligned baseline (the next step's frame, where the element is no longer
    focused — so focus is never manipulated programmatically), measuring ring slices at
    increasing offset (thin and offset outlines), the interior, and top/bottom edge bands.

    Strength (AAA, informative) measures whether the indicator meets 2.4.13 Focus
    Appearance — changed area ≥ a 2px-thick perimeter of the control, and ≥ 3:1 WCAG luminance
    contrast between focused and unfocused states. Advisory only. (This measure is unreliable
    on pages that mutate between steps — e.g. "load more" — because the neighbour-frame
    baseline then differs by content, not just the focus ring; treat AAA numbers on such pages
    with caution. AA presence is unaffected, being driven by the computed style.)

    So 2.4.7 (AA) requires only that an indicator is visible with no size/contrast minimum: a
    faint 1px or low-opacity ring passes AA and is flagged weak at AAA — rather than being
    falsely reported as "no focus indicator."

    Screen-reader detection (Lakshmi)

    The screen-reader persona is emulated, never driven for real: @guidepup/virtual-screen-reader
    builds an ARIA/ACCNAME-spec accessible tree over the live page and computes what a
    spec-compliant screen reader would announce, entirely in the browser's own JS engine — no
    NVDA/JAWS/VoiceOver is launched, and it works the same way on any OS the runner itself
    supports.

    Its self-contained browser bundle is injected via Playwright's context.addInitScript,
    which is not subject to the page's own CSP — verified against both a synthetic CSP-locked
    page and a real CSP-locked production site. Once injected, its virtual cursor tracks
    real keyboard focus automatically     (it listens for native focusin events), so every
    step you drive with real Tab/Enter/etc. produces a matching sr_announcement with no
    separate "chasing" logic and no drift between what's focused and what's reported as
    announced. The same mechanism also wires a MutationObserver that computes WAI-ARIA
    live-region semantics and captures "assertive: …"/"polite: …" announcements as they
    happen — this is what 4.1.3 (Status Messages) findings are derived from.

    Separately, once per newly-visited page URL, an ephemeral instance walks the entire page
    in reading order (never touching the live per-step monitor) to build
    screen-reader-census.json — the source for the heading-hierarchy, duplicate-landmark,
    missing-alt-text, and bare-role-control checks, since those need whole-page context rather
    than just the stops a keyboard user's Tab order happens to visit.

    This augments but does not replace testing with a real screen reader and real users —
    the upstream library's own README says exactly that, and it's worth repeating: this checks
    what a spec-compliant screen reader should announce given the page's ARIA/HTML, not the
    specific quirks of any one real screen reader implementation.

    CAPTCHAs

    CAPTCHAs detect automation and refuse to run; the runner has a page-scoped, human-approved
    compatibility workaround. See docs/usage.md for details.

    License

    MIT © Everett Zufelt. See LICENSE.

 Controls 0/21 ●

  • Controls


    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    When a job is assigned permissions in a CI/CD pipeline, the source code or configuration MUST only assign the minimum privileges necessary for the corresponding activity. [OSPS-AC-04.02]
    Configure the project's CI/CD pipelines to assign the lowest available permissions to users and services by default, elevating permissions only when necessary for specific tasks. In some version control systems, this may be possible at the organizational or repository level. If not, set permissions at the top level of the pipeline.

    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    CI/CD pipelines which accept trusted collaborator input MUST sanitize and validate that input prior to use in the pipeline. [OSPS-BR-01.04]
    CI/CD pipelines should sanitize (quote, escape or exit on expected values) all collaborator inputs on explicit workflow executions. While collaborators are generally trusted, manual inputs to a workflow cannot be reviewed and could be abused by an account takeover or insider threat.

    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    When an official release is created, all assets within that release MUST be clearly associated with the release identifier or another unique identifier for the asset. [OSPS-BR-02.02]
    Assign a unique version identifier to each software asset produced by the project, following a consistent naming convention or numbering scheme. Examples include SemVer, CalVer, or git commit id.

    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    The project MUST define a policy for managing secrets and credentials used by the project. The policy should include guidelines for storing, accessing, and rotating secrets and credentials. [OSPS-BR-07.02]
    Document how secrets and credentials are managed and used within the project. This should include details on how secrets are stored (e.g., using a secrets management tool), how access is controlled, and how secrets are rotated or updated. Ensure that sensitive information is not hard-coded in the source code or stored in version control systems.

    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    When the project has made a release, the project documentation MUST contain instructions to verify the integrity and authenticity of the release assets. [OSPS-DO-03.01]
    Instructions in the project should contain information about the technology used, the commands to run, and the expected output. When possible, avoid storing this documentation in the same location as the build and release pipeline to avoid a single breach compromising both the software and the documentation for verifying the integrity of the software.

    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    When the project has made a release, the project documentation MUST contain instructions to verify the expected identity of the person or process authoring the software release. [OSPS-DO-03.02]
    The expected identity may be in the form of key IDs used to sign, issuer and identity from a sigstore certificate, or other similar forms. When possible, avoid storing this documentation in the same location as the build and release pipeline to avoid a single breach compromising both the software and the documentation for verifying the integrity of the software.

    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    When the project has made a release, the project documentation MUST include a descriptive statement about the scope and duration of support for each release. [OSPS-DO-04.01]
    In order to communicate the scope and duration of support for the project's released software assets, the project should have a SUPPORT.md file, a "Support" section in SECURITY.md, or other documentation explaining the support lifecycle, including the expected duration of support for each release, the types of support provided (e.g., bug fixes, security updates), and any relevant policies or procedures for obtaining support.

    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    When the project has made a release, the project documentation MUST provide a descriptive statement when releases or versions will no longer receive security updates. [OSPS-DO-05.01]
    In order to communicate the scope and duration of support for security fixes, the project should have a SUPPORT.md or other documentation explaining the project's policy for security updates.

    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    While active, the project documentation MUST have a policy that code collaborators are reviewed prior to granting escalated permissions to sensitive resources. [OSPS-GV-04.01]
    Publish an enforceable policy in the project documentation that requires code collaborators to be reviewed and approved before being granted escalated permissions to sensitive resources, such as merge approval or access to secrets. It is recommended that vetting includes establishing a justifiable lineage of identity such as confirming the contributor's association with a known trusted organization.

    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    When the project has made a release, all compiled released software assets MUST be delivered with a software bill of materials. [OSPS-QA-02.02]
    It is recommended to auto-generate SBOMs at build time using a tool that has been vetted for accuracy. This enables users to ingest this data in a standardized approach alongside other projects in their environment.

    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    When the project has made a release comprising multiple source code repositories, all subprojects MUST enforce security requirements that are as strict or stricter than the primary codebase. [OSPS-QA-04.02]
    Any additional subproject code repositories produced by the project and compiled into a release must enforce security requirements as applicable to the status and intent of the respective codebase. In addition to following the corresponding OSPS Baseline requirements, this may include requiring a security review, ensuring that it is free of vulnerabilities, and ensuring that it is free of known security issues.

    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    While active, project's documentation MUST clearly document when and how tests are run. [OSPS-QA-06.02]
    Add a section to the contributing documentation that explains how to run the tests locally and how to run the tests in the CI/CD pipeline. The documentation should explain what the tests are testing and how to interpret the results.

    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    While active, the project's documentation MUST include a policy that all major changes to the software produced by the project should add or update tests of the functionality in an automated test suite. [OSPS-QA-06.03]
    Add a section to the contributing documentation that explains the policy for adding or updating tests. The policy should explain what constitutes a major change and what tests should be added or updated.

    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    When a commit is made to the primary branch, the project's version control system MUST require at least one non-author human approval of the changes before merging. [OSPS-QA-07.01]
    Configure the project's version control system to require at least one non-author human approval of changes before merging into the release or primary branch. This can be achieved by requiring a pull request to be reviewed and approved by at least one other collaborator before it can be merged.

    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    When the project has made a release, the project MUST perform a threat modeling and attack surface analysis to understand and protect against attacks on critical code paths, functions, and interactions within the system. [OSPS-SA-03.02]
    Threat modeling is an activity where the project looks at the codebase, associated processes and infrastructure, interfaces, key components and "thinks like a hacker" and brainstorms how the system be be broken or compromised. Each identified threat is listed out so the project can then think about how to proactively avoid or close off any gaps/vulnerabilities that could arise. Ensure this is updated for new features or breaking changes.

    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    While active, any vulnerabilities in the software components not affecting the project MUST be accounted for in a VEX document, augmenting the vulnerability report with non-exploitability details. [OSPS-VM-04.02]
    Establish a VEX feed communicating the exploitability status of known vulnerabilities, including assessment details or any mitigations in place preventing vulnerable code from being executed.

    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    While active, the project documentation MUST include a policy that defines a threshold for remediation of SCA findings related to vulnerabilities and licenses. [OSPS-VM-05.01]
    Document a policy in the project that defines a threshold for remediation of SCA findings related to vulnerabilities and licenses. Include the process for identifying, prioritizing, and remediating these findings.

    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    While active, the project documentation MUST include a policy to address SCA violations prior to any release. [OSPS-VM-05.02]
    Document a policy in the project to address applicable Software Composition Analysis results before any release, and add status checks that verify compliance with that policy prior to release.

    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    While active, all changes to the project's codebase MUST be automatically evaluated against a documented policy for malicious dependencies and known vulnerabilities in dependencies, then blocked in the event of violations, except when declared and suppressed as non-exploitable. [OSPS-VM-05.03]
    Create a status check in the project's version control system that runs a Software Composition Analysis tool on all changes to the codebase. Require that the status check passes before changes can be merged.

    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    While active, the project documentation MUST include a policy that defines a threshold for remediation of SAST findings. [OSPS-VM-06.01]
    Document a policy in the project that defines a threshold for remediation of Static Application Security Testing (SAST) findings. Include the process for identifying, prioritizing, and remediating these findings.

    Unknown required information, not enough for a badge.

    While active, all changes to the project's codebase MUST be automatically evaluated against a documented policy for security weaknesses and blocked in the event of violations except when declared and suppressed as non-exploitable. [OSPS-VM-06.02]
    Create a status check in the project's version control system that runs a Static Application Security Testing (SAST) tool on all changes to the codebase. Require that the status check passes before changes can be merged.


This data is available under the Community Data License Agreement – Permissive, Version 2.0 (CDLA-Permissive-2.0). This means that a Data Recipient may share the Data, with or without modifications, so long as the Data Recipient makes available the text of this agreement with the shared Data. Please credit ezufelt and the OpenSSF Best Practices badge contributors.

Project badge entry owned by: ezufelt.
Entry created on 2026-07-10 18:22:26 UTC, last updated on 2026-07-10 21:04:01 UTC. Last achieved passing badge on 2026-07-10 21:04:01 UTC.