Accessibility checked on every page,
not just the ones someone remembered
Accessibility usually gets a real pass once, before a launch or an audit, and drifts afterward as new pages and components get added without the same scrutiny. We build an agent that scans your site against WCAG standards continuously, flags genuine barriers, contrast, missing labels, keyboard traps, not just automated-checker noise, and explains each one in language your team can act on without a specialist.
The process today
A site usually gets a real accessibility pass once, often right before launch or in response to a specific legal or procurement requirement, and that pass covers whatever pages existed at the time. New pages, new components, a redesigned checkout flow, a freshly added blog template, ship afterward without the same scrutiny, because accessibility review is not a standard step in most teams’ regular publishing or development workflow the way a spell-check or a broken-link check might be.
The second cost is that automated accessibility scanners, when teams do use one, tend to produce a lot of noise: technical rule violations that do not actually affect a real user, alongside the genuine barriers that do, with no clear way to tell which is which without a specialist reading through the output. Faced with a long list of flagged issues with no severity distinction, most teams either ignore the list or spend more time triaging it than fixing anything.
The third is that accessibility fixes, when they do happen, often get explained in terms of the WCAG rule number violated rather than what the actual problem is for a real user, which makes it hard for a developer without accessibility training to know what to actually change.
What the agent does
The agent scans every page on your site on a schedule against WCAG 2.1 AA criteria, including pages published after the last manual review, so new content gets the same scrutiny as what existed at launch. It flags genuine barriers, color contrast that fails for real body text, images without meaningful alt text, form fields without a programmatic label, keyboard traps that prevent a non-mouse user from navigating past a certain point, and scores each by actual impact on a screen reader or keyboard-only user rather than treating every technical rule violation as equally urgent.
Each flagged issue comes with a plain-language explanation of what it means for a real visitor and the specific fix needed, not just a WCAG rule citation. For a small set of safe, mechanical fixes, generating alt text for an image based on its actual content, for example, the agent proposes a ready pull request. After a fix ships, a regression check confirms the specific issue is actually resolved rather than assuming it is. A dated compliance report is kept current, ready to hand to a legal team, a procurement reviewer, or an enterprise customer’s own accessibility questionnaire. Typical integrations: a scheduled headless browser scan, cross-referenced against your CMS or site generator for new-page detection.
What stays with humans
Deciding how to redesign an interaction that fails a keyboard accessibility check, where the fix is not mechanical and involves a real design trade-off, is a decision your design and development team makes; the agent explains the barrier clearly and proposes an approach, it does not redesign your UI on its own. Legal judgment about what level of compliance your business actually needs, and any formal accessibility statement published on your site, stays with your legal counsel.
Guards
Every scan and every flagged issue, fixed or still open, is logged with a date, building a defensible record of ongoing effort that matters if accessibility is ever legally challenged. The agent’s proposed fixes for mechanical issues always go through your normal review and merge process, never applied directly to a live site. A kill switch pauses the scheduled scan during a major site migration without losing the history already recorded.
Price and timeline
| Option | Price | What it covers | Timeline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single automation | from $600 | One site, WCAG 2.1 AA scan, severity scoring, plain-language fixes | 4 to 8 days |
| Department package | from $1,800 | Accessibility checks plus cookie consent audits and technical SEO checks | 2 to 3 weeks |
Running cost is usually $10 to $30 a month in scan and model usage depending on site size.
Related
This pairs well with technical SEO checks on every deploy and cookie consent and tracking audits, since all three are the same kind of scheduled site-health check. For the deploy pipeline this can plug into, see CI/CD pipelines with AI code checks. Full package details are on the AI agents service page and the automation-everything overview; for multi-language sites where this kind of ongoing check matters, see the Montenegro real estate site case study and the tattoo studio site redesign case study.
Not sure how accessible your site actually is past the pages someone last checked? Get in touch and we will scan it in the first call.
Tired of doing this by hand? We can take the whole routine off your team, not just this step: Routine takeover, from $400 →
FAQ
How much does accessibility check automation cost?
From $600 for a single site, live in 4 to 8 days. A larger multi-language site or one with many templates usually runs $1,000 to $1,800.
Does this replace a real accessibility audit by a specialist?
For most ongoing maintenance, yes, it catches the common and recurring issues continuously. For a legal compliance certification or a complex interactive component, a specialist review is still worth doing once, and this keeps things from drifting in between.
Will it flag things that are not actually problems, like automated scanners often do?
Automated accessibility tools are known for a lot of noise; this agent checks flagged issues against actual rendered impact, a low-contrast decorative element that is not real content, for example, rather than flagging every technical rule violation regardless of whether it affects a real user.
Does it fix the issues automatically?
For a small set of safe, mechanical fixes, like adding alt text drafted from the image content, it can propose a pull request. Most fixes, especially ones involving layout or interaction, go to your developer with a plain-language explanation and the specific fix needed.
Does it cover multiple languages on the same site?
Yes, each language version is scanned independently, since text length, reading order and screen-reader behavior can differ between languages even on an otherwise identical page.