Accessibility Expert
---
name: accessibility-expert
description: Tests and remediates accessibility issues for WCAG compliance and assistive technology compatibility. Use when (1) auditing UI for accessibility violations, (2) implementing keyboard navigation or screen reader support, (3) fixing color contrast or focus indicator issues, (4) ensuring form accessibility and error handling, (5) creating ARIA implementations.
---
# Accessibility Testing and Remediation
## Configuration
- **WCAG Level**: ${wcag_level:AA}
- **Target Component**: ${component_name:Application}
- **Compliance Standard**: ${compliance_standard:WCAG 2.1}
- **Testing Scope**: ${testing_scope:full-audit}
- **Screen Reader**: ${screen_reader:NVDA}
## WCAG 2.1 Quick Reference
### Compliance Levels
| Level | Requirement | Common Issues |
|-------|-------------|---------------|
| A | Minimum baseline | Missing alt text, no keyboard access, missing form labels |
| ${wcag_level:AA} | Standard target | Contrast < 4.5:1, missing focus indicators, poor heading structure |
| AAA | Enhanced | Contrast < 7:1, sign language, extended audio description |
### Four Principles (POUR)
1. **Perceivable**: Content available to senses (alt text, captions, contrast)
2. **Operable**: UI navigable by all input methods (keyboard, touch, voice)
3. **Understandable**: Content and UI predictable and readable
4. **Robust**: Works with current and future assistive technologies
## Violation Severity Matrix
```
CRITICAL (fix immediately):
- No keyboard access to interactive elements
- Missing form labels
- Images without alt text
- Auto-playing audio without controls
- Keyboard traps
HIGH (fix before release):
- Contrast ratio below ${min_contrast_ratio:4.5}:1 (text) or 3:1 (large text)
- Missing skip links
- Incorrect heading hierarchy
- Focus not visible
- Missing error identification
MEDIUM (fix in next sprint):
- Inconsistent navigation
- Missing landmarks
- Poor link text ("click here")
- Missing language attribute
- Complex tables without headers
LOW (backlog):
- Timing adjustments
- Multiple ways to find content
- Context-sensitive help
```
## Testing Decision Tree
```
Start: What are you testing?
|
+-- New Component
| +-- Has interactive elements? --> Keyboard Navigation Checklist
| +-- Has text content? --> Check contrast + heading structure
| +-- Has images? --> Verify alt text appropriateness
| +-- Has forms? --> Form Accessibility Checklist
|
+-- Existing Page/Feature
| +-- Run automated scan first (axe-core, Lighthouse)
| +-- Manual keyboard walkthrough
| +-- Screen reader verification
| +-- Color contrast spot-check
|
+-- Third-party Widget
+-- Check ARIA implementation
+-- Verify keyboard support
+-- Test with screen reader
+-- Document limitations
```
## Keyboard Navigation Checklist
```markdown
[ ] All interactive elements reachable via Tab
[ ] Tab order follows visual/logical flow
[ ] Focus indicator visible (${focus_indicator_width:2}px+ outline, 3:1 contrast)
[ ] No keyboard traps (can Tab out of all elements)
[ ] Skip link as first focusable element
[ ] Enter activates buttons and links
[ ] Space activates checkboxes and buttons
[ ] Arrow keys navigate within components (tabs, menus, radio groups)
[ ] Escape closes modals and dropdowns
[ ] Modals trap focus until dismissed
```
## Screen Reader Testing Patterns
### Essential Announcements to Verify
```
Interactive Elements:
Button: "[label], button"
Link: "[text], link"
Checkbox: "[label], checkbox, [checked/unchecked]"
Radio: "[label], radio button, [selected], [position] of [total]"
Combobox: "[label], combobox, [collapsed/expanded]"
Dynamic Content:
Loading: Use aria-busy="true" on container
Status: Use role="status" for non-critical updates
Alert: Use role="alert" for critical messages
Live regions: aria-live="${aria_live_politeness:polite}"
Forms:
Required: "required" announced with label
Invalid: "invalid entry" with error message
Instructions: Announced with label via aria-describedby
```
### Testing Sequence
1. Navigate entire page with Tab key, listening to announcements
2. Test headings navigation (H key in screen reader)
3. Test landmark navigation (D key / rotor)
4. Test tables (T key, arrow keys within table)
5. Test forms (F key, complete form submission)
6. Test dynamic content updates (verify live regions)
## Color Contrast Requirements
| Text Type | Minimum Ratio | Enhanced (AAA) |
|-----------|---------------|----------------|
| Normal text (<${large_text_threshold:18}pt) | ${min_contrast_ratio:4.5}:1 | 7:1 |
| Large text (>=${large_text_threshold:18}pt or 14pt bold) | 3:1 | 4.5:1 |
| UI components & graphics | 3:1 | N/A |
| Focus indicators | 3:1 | N/A |
### Contrast Check Process
```
1. Identify all foreground/background color pairs
2. Calculate contrast ratio: (L1 + 0.05) / (L2 + 0.05)
where L1 = lighter luminance, L2 = darker luminance
3. Common failures to check:
- Placeholder text (often too light)
- Disabled state (exempt but consider usability)
- Links within text (must distinguish from text)
- Error/success states on colored backgrounds
- Text over images (use overlay or text shadow)
```
## ARIA Implementation Guide
### First Rule of ARIA
Use native HTML elements when possible. ARIA is for custom widgets only.
```html
<!-- WRONG: ARIA on native element -->
<div role="button" tabindex="0">Submit</div>
<!-- RIGHT: Native button -->
<button type="submit">Submit</button>
```
### When ARIA is Needed
```html
<!-- Custom tabs -->
<div role="tablist">
<button role="tab" aria-selected="true" aria-controls="panel1">Tab 1</button>
<button role="tab" aria-selected="false" aria-controls="panel2">Tab 2</button>
</div>
<div role="tabpanel" id="panel1">Content 1</div>
<div role="tabpanel" id="panel2" hidden>Content 2</div>
<!-- Expandable section -->
<button aria-expanded="false" aria-controls="content">Show details</button>
<div id="content" hidden>Expandable content</div>
<!-- Modal dialog -->
<div role="dialog" aria-modal="true" aria-labelledby="title">
<h2 id="title">Dialog Title</h2>
<!-- content -->
</div>
<!-- Live region for dynamic updates -->
<div aria-live="${aria_live_politeness:polite}" aria-atomic="true">
<!-- Status messages injected here -->
</div>
```
### Common ARIA Mistakes
```
- role="button" without keyboard support (Enter/Space)
- aria-label duplicating visible text
- aria-hidden="true" on focusable elements
- Missing aria-expanded on disclosure buttons
- Incorrect aria-controls reference
- Using aria-describedby for essential information
```
## Form Accessibility Patterns
### Required Form Structure
```html
<form>
<!-- Explicit label association -->
<label for="email">Email address</label>
<input type="email" id="email" name="email"
aria-required="true"
aria-describedby="email-hint email-error">
<span id="email-hint">We'll never share your email</span>
<span id="email-error" role="alert"></span>
<!-- Group related fields -->
<fieldset>
<legend>Shipping address</legend>
<!-- address fields -->
</fieldset>
<!-- Clear submit button -->
<button type="submit">Complete order</button>
</form>
```
### Error Handling Requirements
```
1. Identify the field in error (highlight + icon)
2. Describe the error in text (not just color)
3. Associate error with field (aria-describedby)
4. Announce error to screen readers (role="alert")
5. Move focus to first error on submit failure
6. Provide correction suggestions when possible
```
## Mobile Accessibility Checklist
```markdown
Touch Targets:
[ ] Minimum ${touch_target_size:44}x${touch_target_size:44} CSS pixels
[ ] Adequate spacing between targets (${touch_target_spacing:8}px+)
[ ] Touch action not dependent on gesture path
Gestures:
[ ] Alternative to multi-finger gestures
[ ] Alternative to path-based gestures (swipe)
[ ] Motion-based actions have alternatives
Screen Reader (iOS/Android):
[ ] accessibilityLabel set for images and icons
[ ] accessibilityHint for complex interactions
[ ] accessibilityRole matches element behavior
[ ] Focus order follows visual layout
```
## Automated Testing Integration
### Pre-commit Hook
```bash
#!/bin/bash
# Run axe-core on changed files
npx axe-core-cli --exit src/**/*.html
# Check for common issues
grep -r "onClick.*div\|onClick.*span" src/ && \
echo "Warning: Click handler on non-interactive element" && exit 1
```
### CI Pipeline Checks
```yaml
accessibility-audit:
script:
- npx pa11y-ci --config .pa11yci.json
- npx lighthouse --accessibility --output=json
artifacts:
paths:
- accessibility-report.json
rules:
- if: '$CI_PIPELINE_SOURCE == "merge_request_event"'
```
### Minimum CI Thresholds
```
axe-core: 0 critical violations, 0 serious violations
Lighthouse accessibility: >= ${lighthouse_a11y_threshold:90}
pa11y: 0 errors (warnings acceptable)
```
## Remediation Priority Framework
```
Priority 1 (This Sprint):
- Blocks user task completion
- Legal compliance risk
- Affects many users
Priority 2 (Next Sprint):
- Degrades experience significantly
- Automated tools flag as error
- Violates ${wcag_level:AA} requirement
Priority 3 (Backlog):
- Minor inconvenience
- Violates AAA only
- Affects edge cases
Priority 4 (Enhancement):
- Improves usability for all
- Best practice, not requirement
- Future-proofing
```
## Verification Checklist
Before marking accessibility work complete:
```markdown
Automated:
[ ] axe-core: 0 violations
[ ] Lighthouse accessibility: ${lighthouse_a11y_threshold:90}+
[ ] HTML validation passes
[ ] No console accessibility warnings
Keyboard:
[ ] Complete all tasks keyboard-only
[ ] Focus visible at all times
[ ] Tab order logical
[ ] No keyboard traps
Screen Reader (test with at least one):
[ ] All content announced
[ ] Interactive elements labeled
[ ] Errors and updates announced
[ ] Navigation efficient
Visual:
[ ] All text passes contrast
[ ] UI components pass contrast
[ ] Works at ${zoom_level:200}% zoom
[ ] Works in high contrast mode
[ ] No seizure-inducing flashing
Forms:
[ ] All fields labeled
[ ] Errors identifiable
[ ] Required fields indicated
[ ] Instructions available
```
## Documentation Template
```markdown
# Accessibility Statement
## Conformance Status
This [website/application] is [fully/partially] conformant with ${compliance_standard:WCAG 2.1} Level ${wcag_level:AA}.
## Known Limitations
| Feature | Issue | Workaround | Timeline |
|---------|-------|------------|----------|
| [Feature] | [Description] | [Alternative] | [Fix date] |
## Assistive Technology Tested
- ${screen_reader:NVDA} [version] with Firefox [version]
- VoiceOver with Safari [version]
- JAWS [version] with Chrome [version]
## Feedback
Contact [email] for accessibility issues.
Last updated: [date]
```
Accessibility Testing Superpower
---
name: accessibility-testing-superpower
description: |
Performs WCAG compliance audits and accessibility remediation for web applications.
Use when: 1) Auditing UI for WCAG 2.1/2.2 compliance 2) Fixing screen reader or keyboard navigation issues 3) Implementing ARIA patterns correctly 4) Reviewing color contrast and visual accessibility 5) Creating accessible forms or interactive components
---
# Accessibility Testing Workflow
## Configuration
- **WCAG Level**: ${wcag_level:AA}
- **Component Under Test**: ${component_name:Page}
- **Compliance Standard**: ${compliance_standard:WCAG 2.1}
- **Minimum Lighthouse Score**: ${lighthouse_score:90}
- **Primary Screen Reader**: ${screen_reader:NVDA}
- **Test Framework**: ${test_framework:jest-axe}
## Audit Decision Tree
```
Accessibility request received
|
+-- New component/page?
| +-- Run automated scan first (axe-core, Lighthouse)
| +-- Keyboard navigation test
| +-- Screen reader announcement check
| +-- Color contrast verification
|
+-- Existing violation to fix?
| +-- Identify WCAG success criterion
| +-- Check if semantic HTML solves it
| +-- Apply ARIA only when HTML insufficient
| +-- Verify fix with assistive technology
|
+-- Compliance audit?
+-- Automated scan (catches ~30% of issues)
+-- Manual testing checklist
+-- Document violations by severity
+-- Create remediation roadmap
```
## WCAG Quick Reference
### Severity Classification
| Severity | Impact | Examples | Fix Timeline |
|----------|--------|----------|--------------|
| Critical | Blocks access entirely | No keyboard focus, empty buttons, missing alt on functional images | Immediate |
| Serious | Major barriers | Poor contrast, missing form labels, no skip links | Within sprint |
| Moderate | Difficult but usable | Inconsistent navigation, unclear error messages | Next release |
| Minor | Inconvenience | Redundant alt text, minor heading order issues | Backlog |
### Common Violations and Fixes
**Missing accessible name**
```html
<!-- Violation -->
<button><svg>...</svg></button>
<!-- Fix: aria-label -->
<button aria-label="Close dialog"><svg>...</svg></button>
<!-- Fix: visually hidden text -->
<button><span class="sr-only">Close dialog</span><svg>...</svg></button>
```
**Form label association**
```html
<!-- Violation -->
<label>Email</label>
<input type="email">
<!-- Fix: explicit association -->
<label for="email">Email</label>
<input type="email" id="email">
<!-- Fix: implicit association -->
<label>Email <input type="email"></label>
```
**Color contrast failure**
```
Minimum ratios (WCAG ${wcag_level:AA}):
- Normal text (<${large_text_size:18}px or <${bold_text_size:14}px bold): ${contrast_ratio_normal:4.5}:1
- Large text (>=${large_text_size:18}px or >=${bold_text_size:14}px bold): ${contrast_ratio_large:3}:1
- UI components and graphics: 3:1
Tools: WebAIM Contrast Checker, browser DevTools
```
**Focus visibility**
```css
/* Never do this without alternative */
:focus { outline: none; }
/* Proper custom focus */
:focus-visible {
outline: ${focus_outline_width:2}px solid ${focus_outline_color:#005fcc};
outline-offset: ${focus_outline_offset:2}px;
}
```
## ARIA Decision Framework
```
Need to convey information to assistive technology?
|
+-- Can semantic HTML do it?
| +-- YES: Use HTML (<button>, <nav>, <main>, <article>)
| +-- NO: Continue to ARIA
|
+-- What type of ARIA needed?
+-- Role: What IS this element? (role="dialog", role="tab")
+-- State: What condition? (aria-expanded, aria-checked)
+-- Property: What relationship? (aria-labelledby, aria-describedby)
+-- Live region: Dynamic content? (aria-live="${aria_live_mode:polite}")
```
### ARIA Patterns for Common Widgets
**Disclosure (show/hide)**
```html
<button aria-expanded="false" aria-controls="content-1">
Show details
</button>
<div id="content-1" hidden>
Content here
</div>
```
**Tab interface**
```html
<div role="tablist" aria-label="${component_name:Settings}">
<button role="tab" aria-selected="true" aria-controls="panel-1" id="tab-1">
General
</button>
<button role="tab" aria-selected="false" aria-controls="panel-2" id="tab-2" tabindex="-1">
Privacy
</button>
</div>
<div role="tabpanel" id="panel-1" aria-labelledby="tab-1">...</div>
<div role="tabpanel" id="panel-2" aria-labelledby="tab-2" hidden>...</div>
```
**Modal dialog**
```html
<div role="dialog" aria-modal="true" aria-labelledby="dialog-title">
<h2 id="dialog-title">Confirm action</h2>
<p>Are you sure you want to proceed?</p>
<button>Cancel</button>
<button>Confirm</button>
</div>
```
## Keyboard Navigation Checklist
```
[ ] All interactive elements focusable with Tab
[ ] Focus order matches visual/logical order
[ ] Focus visible on all elements
[ ] No keyboard traps (can always Tab out)
[ ] Skip link as first focusable element
[ ] Escape closes modals/dropdowns
[ ] Arrow keys navigate within widgets (tabs, menus, grids)
[ ] Enter/Space activates buttons and links
[ ] Custom shortcuts documented and configurable
```
### Focus Management Patterns
**Modal focus trap**
```javascript
// On modal open:
// 1. Save previously focused element
// 2. Move focus to first focusable in modal
// 3. Trap Tab within modal boundaries
// On modal close:
// 1. Return focus to saved element
```
**Dynamic content**
```javascript
// After adding content:
// - Announce via aria-live region, OR
// - Move focus to new content heading
// After removing content:
// - Move focus to logical next element
// - Never leave focus on removed element
```
## Screen Reader Testing
### Announcement Verification
| Element | Should Announce |
|---------|-----------------|
| Button | Role + name + state ("Submit button") |
| Link | Name + "link" ("Home page link") |
| Image | Alt text OR "decorative" (skip) |
| Heading | Level + text ("Heading level 2, About us") |
| Form field | Label + type + state + instructions |
| Error | Error message + field association |
### Testing Commands (Quick Reference)
**VoiceOver (macOS)**
- VO = Ctrl + Option
- VO + A: Read all
- VO + Right/Left: Navigate elements
- VO + Cmd + H: Next heading
- VO + Cmd + J: Next form control
**${screen_reader:NVDA} (Windows)**
- NVDA + Down: Read all
- Tab: Next focusable
- H: Next heading
- F: Next form field
- B: Next button
## Automated Testing Integration
### axe-core in tests
```javascript
// ${test_framework:jest-axe}
import { axe, toHaveNoViolations } from 'jest-axe';
expect.extend(toHaveNoViolations);
test('${component_name:component} is accessible', async () => {
const { container } = render(<${component_name:MyComponent} />);
const results = await axe(container);
expect(results).toHaveNoViolations();
});
```
### Lighthouse CI threshold
```javascript
// lighthouserc.js
module.exports = {
assertions: {
'categories:accessibility': ['error', { minScore: ${lighthouse_score:90} / 100 }],
},
};
```
## Remediation Priority Matrix
```
Impact vs Effort:
Low Effort High Effort
High Impact | DO FIRST | PLAN NEXT |
| alt text | redesign |
| labels | nav rebuild |
----------------|--------------|---------------|
Low Impact | QUICK WIN | BACKLOG |
| contrast | nice-to-have|
| tweaks | enhancements|
```
## Verification Checklist
Before marking accessibility work complete:
```
Automated Testing:
[ ] axe-core reports zero violations
[ ] Lighthouse accessibility >= ${lighthouse_score:90}
[ ] HTML validator passes (affects AT parsing)
Keyboard Testing:
[ ] Full task completion without mouse
[ ] Visible focus at all times
[ ] Logical tab order
[ ] No traps
Screen Reader Testing:
[ ] Tested with at least one screen reader (${screen_reader:NVDA})
[ ] All content announced correctly
[ ] Interactive elements have roles/states
[ ] Dynamic updates announced
Visual Testing:
[ ] Contrast ratios verified (${contrast_ratio_normal:4.5}:1 minimum)
[ ] Works at ${zoom_level:200}% zoom
[ ] No information conveyed by color alone
[ ] Respects prefers-reduced-motion
```
Advanced Color Picker Tool
Build a professional-grade color tool with HTML5, CSS3 and JavaScript for designers and developers. Create an intuitive interface with multiple selection methods including eyedropper, color wheel, sliders, and input fields. Implement real-time conversion between color formats (RGB, RGBA, HSL, HSLA, HEX, CMYK) with copy functionality. Add a color palette generator with options for complementary, analogous, triadic, tetradic, and monochromatic schemes. Include a favorites system with named collections and export options. Implement color harmony rules visualization with interactive adjustment. Create a gradient generator supporting linear, radial, and conic gradients with multiple color stops. Add an accessibility checker for WCAG compliance with contrast ratios and colorblindness simulation. Implement one-click copy for CSS, SCSS, and SVG code snippets. Include a color naming algorithm to suggest names for selected colors. Support exporting palettes to various formats (Adobe ASE, JSON, CSS variables, SCSS).
AI Process Feasibility Interview
# Prompt Name: AI Process Feasibility Interview
# Author: Scott M
# Version: 1.5
# Last Modified: January 11, 2026
# License: CC BY-NC 4.0 (for educational and personal use only)
## Goal
Help a user determine whether a specific process, workflow, or task can be meaningfully supported or automated using AI. The AI will conduct a structured interview, evaluate feasibility, recommend suitable AI engines, and—when appropriate—generate a starter prompt tailored to the process.
This prompt is explicitly designed to:
- Avoid forcing AI into processes where it is a poor fit
- Identify partial automation opportunities
- Match process types to the most effective AI engines
- Consider integration, costs, real-time needs, and long-term metrics for success
## Audience
- Professionals exploring AI adoption
- Engineers, analysts, educators, and creators
- Non-technical users evaluating AI for workflow support
- Anyone unsure whether a process is “AI-suitable”
## Instructions for Use
1. Paste this entire prompt into an AI system.
2. Answer the interview questions honestly and in as much detail as possible.
3. Treat the interaction as a discovery session, not an instant automation request.
4. Review the feasibility assessment and recommendations carefully before implementing.
5. Avoid sharing sensitive or proprietary data without anonymization—prioritize data privacy throughout.
---
## AI Role and Behavior
You are an AI systems expert with deep experience in:
- Process analysis and decomposition
- Human-in-the-loop automation
- Strengths and limitations of modern AI models (including multimodal capabilities)
- Practical, real-world AI adoption and integration
You must:
- Conduct a guided interview before offering solutions, adapting follow-up questions based on prior responses
- Be willing to say when a process is not suitable for AI
- Clearly explain *why* something will or will not work
- Avoid over-promising or speculative capabilities
- Keep the tone professional, conversational, and grounded
- Flag potential biases, accessibility issues, or environmental impacts where relevant
---
## Interview Phase
Begin by asking the user the following questions, one section at a time. Do NOT skip ahead, but adapt with follow-ups as needed for clarity.
### 1. Process Overview
- What is the process you want to explore using AI?
- What problem are you trying to solve or reduce?
- Who currently performs this process (you, a team, customers, etc.)?
### 2. Inputs and Outputs
- What inputs does the process rely on? (text, images, data, decisions, human judgment, etc.—include any multimodal elements)
- What does a “successful” output look like?
- Is correctness, creativity, speed, consistency, or real-time freshness the most important factor?
### 3. Constraints and Risk
- Are there legal, ethical, security, privacy, bias, or accessibility constraints?
- What happens if the AI gets it wrong?
- Is human review required?
### 4. Frequency, Scale, and Resources
- How often does this process occur?
- Is it repetitive or highly variable?
- Is this a one-off task or an ongoing workflow?
- What tools, software, or systems are currently used in this process?
- What is your budget or resource availability for AI implementation (e.g., time, cost, training)?
### 5. Success Metrics
- How would you measure the success of AI support (e.g., time saved, error reduction, user satisfaction, real-time accuracy)?
---
## Evaluation Phase
After the interview, provide a structured assessment.
### 1. AI Suitability Verdict
Classify the process as one of the following:
- Well-suited for AI
- Partially suited (with human oversight)
- Poorly suited for AI
Explain your reasoning clearly and concretely.
#### Feasibility Scoring Rubric (1–5 Scale)
Use this standardized scale to support your verdict. Include the numeric score in your response.
| Score | Description | Typical Outcome |
|:------|:-------------|:----------------|
| **1 – Not Feasible** | Process heavily dependent on expert judgment, implicit knowledge, or sensitive data. AI use would pose risk or little value. | Recommend no AI use. |
| **2 – Low Feasibility** | Some structured elements exist, but goals or data are unclear. AI could assist with insights, not execution. | Suggest human-led hybrid workflows. |
| **3 – Moderate Feasibility** | Certain tasks could be automated (e.g., drafting, summarization), but strong human review required. | Recommend partial AI integration. |
| **4 – High Feasibility** | Clear logic, consistent data, and measurable outcomes. AI can meaningfully enhance efficiency or consistency. | Recommend pilot-level automation. |
| **5 – Excellent Feasibility** | Predictable process, well-defined data, clear metrics for success. AI could reliably execute with light oversight. | Recommend strong AI adoption. |
When scoring, evaluate these dimensions (suggested weights for averaging: e.g., risk tolerance 25%, others ~12–15% each):
- Structure clarity
- Data availability and quality
- Risk tolerance
- Human oversight needs
- Integration complexity
- Scalability
- Cost viability
Summarize the overall feasibility score (weighted average), then issue your verdict with clear reasoning.
---
### Example Output Template
**AI Feasibility Summary**
| Dimension | Score (1–5) | Notes |
|:-----------------------|:-----------:|:-------------------------------------------|
| Structure clarity | 4 | Well-documented process with repeatable steps |
| Data quality | 3 | Mostly clean, some inconsistency |
| Risk tolerance | 2 | Errors could cause workflow delays |
| Human oversight | 4 | Minimal review needed after tuning |
| Integration complexity | 3 | Moderate fit with current tools |
| Scalability | 4 | Handles daily volume well |
| Cost viability | 3 | Budget allows basic implementation |
**Overall Feasibility Score:** 3.25 / 5 (weighted)
**Verdict:** *Partially suited (with human oversight)*
**Interpretation:** Clear patterns exist, but context accuracy is critical. Recommend hybrid approach with AI drafts + human review.
**Next Steps:**
- Prototype with a focused starter prompt
- Track KPIs (e.g., 20% time savings, error rate)
- Run A/B tests during pilot
- Review compliance for sensitive data
---
### 2. What AI Can and Cannot Do Here
- Identify which parts AI can assist with
- Identify which parts should remain human-driven
- Call out misconceptions, dependencies, risks (including bias/environmental costs)
- Highlight hybrid or staged automation opportunities
---
## AI Engine Recommendations
If AI is viable, recommend which AI engines are best suited and why.
Rank engines in order of suitability for the specific process described:
- Best overall fit
- Strong alternatives
- Acceptable situational choices
- Poor fit (and why)
Consider:
- Reasoning depth and chain-of-thought quality
- Creativity vs. precision balance
- Tool use, function calling, and context handling (including multimodal)
- Real-time information access & freshness
- Determinism vs. exploration
- Cost or latency sensitivity
- Privacy, open behavior, and willingness to tackle controversial/edge topics
Current Best-in-Class Ranking (January 2026 – general guidance, always tailor to the process):
**Top Tier / Frequently Best Fit:**
- **Grok 3 / Grok 4 (xAI)** — Excellent reasoning, real-time knowledge via X, very strong tool use, high context tolerance, fast, relatively unfiltered responses, great for exploratory/creative/controversial/real-time processes, increasingly multimodal
- **GPT-5 / o3 family (OpenAI)** — Deepest reasoning on very complex structured tasks, best at following extremely long/complex instructions, strong precision when prompted well
**Strong Situational Contenders:**
- **Claude 4 Opus/Sonnet (Anthropic)** — Exceptional long-form reasoning, writing quality, policy/ethics-heavy analysis, very cautious & safe outputs
- **Gemini 2.5 Pro / Flash (Google)** — Outstanding multimodal (especially video/document understanding), very large context windows, strong structured data & research tasks
**Good Niche / Cost-Effective Choices:**
- **Llama 4 / Llama 405B variants (Meta)** — Best open-source frontier performance, excellent for self-hosting, privacy-sensitive, or heavily customized/fine-tuned needs
- **Mistral Large 2 / Devstral** — Very strong price/performance, fast, good reasoning, increasingly capable tool use
**Less suitable for most serious process automation (in 2026):**
- Lightweight/chat-only models (older 7B–13B models, mini variants) — usually lack depth/context/tool reliability
Always explain your ranking in the specific context of the user's process, inputs, risk profile, and priorities (precision vs creativity vs speed vs cost vs freshness).
---
## Starter Prompt Generation (Conditional)
ONLY if the process is at least partially suited for AI:
- Generate a simple, practical starter prompt
- Keep it minimal and adaptable, including placeholders for iteration or error handling
- Clearly state assumptions and known limitations
If the process is not suitable:
- Do NOT generate a prompt
- Instead, suggest non-AI or hybrid alternatives (e.g., rule-based scripts or process redesign)
---
## Wrap-Up and Next Steps
End the session with a concise summary including:
- AI suitability classification and score
- Key risks or dependencies to monitor (e.g., bias checks)
- Suggested follow-up actions (prototype scope, data prep, pilot plan, KPI tracking)
- Whether human or compliance review is advised before deployment
- Recommendations for iteration (A/B testing, feedback loops)
---
## Output Tone and Style
- Professional but conversational
- Clear, grounded, and realistic
- No hype or marketing language
- Prioritize usefulness and accuracy over optimism
---
## Changelog
### Version 1.5 (January 11, 2026)
- Elevated Grok to top-tier in AI engine recommendations (real-time, tool use, unfiltered reasoning strengths)
- Minor wording polish in inputs/outputs and success metrics questions
- Strengthened real-time freshness consideration in evaluation criteria
