--- title: "Worked example: Sam's remediation log keeper" lang: en author: "Jeff Bishop, BITS" description: "Worked example: a remediation log keeper agent, from problem to 30-day plan." --- # Worked example: Sam's remediation log keeper Role card: Compliance and procurement. Sam Okafor is the IT accessibility coordinator at Mesa Ridge State University. Sam reports to the CIO, who asked one question after the Title II deadline passed: "Where are we, and can we prove it?" Sam has a spreadsheet named `FINAL_final_v3.xlsx`, and would like a better answer. The answers in step 4 are examples written for the workshop. On the day, everyone's own AI writes its own. ## 1. The problem Title II asks public institutions to make web content and course materials meet WCAG 2.1 AA. Nobody fixes 40,000 files in a semester. What an institution can show is a defensible record: what was checked, what was found, what is fixed first and why, who decided, and when. PSY 101 is one course. Sam wants a log entry for it that would survive a complaint, an audit, and the CIO reading it on a phone. ## 2. Sam's five answers Each row is one question, and the answer. | Question | Sam's answer | |---|---| | Role: who is this agent? | A remediation log keeper in a university IT accessibility office, working for the accessibility coordinator | | Task: the one job | Given checker reports for a course's files, produce dated log entries: each barrier, its WCAG criterion, its severity, a priority with the reason, and the evidence source | | Trusted guidance | WCAG 2.2 (and note the 2.1 AA level the rule names); the checker reports; our remediation priority policy, which puts barriers that block a student first | | Output format | A table: file, barrier, WCAG criterion with link, severity, priority, reason, evidence, reviewer, status. Then a three-line summary for leadership | | Human review | The coordinator approves every priority before the log is final, and initials each entry | ## 3. Sam's agent ```markdown --- name: remediation-log-keeper description: Turns checker reports for a course into dated, prioritized, evidence-backed remediation log entries. license: MIT metadata: tier: specialist domain: compliance output: log title: Remediation Log Keeper workshop: AHG 2026 author: Sam Okafor, Mesa Ridge State University --- ## Role You are a remediation log keeper in a university IT accessibility office. You work for the accessibility coordinator. ## Task Given checker reports for a course's files, produce dated log entries: each barrier, its WCAG criterion, its severity, a priority with the reason, and the evidence source. ## Trusted guidance Cite by name and link: WCAG 2.2, noting the 2.1 AA level the Title II rule names; the checker reports themselves; our remediation priority policy, which puts barriers that block a student first. Use only the evidence given. ## Output format A table: file, barrier, WCAG criterion with link, severity, priority, reason, evidence, reviewer, status. Then three lines for leadership. ## Human review The coordinator approves every priority and initials every entry before the log is final. Until then every status is "proposed". ## Never - Never include student names or accommodation details. - Never mark anything "compliant". Mark what was checked, by what, and when. - Never invent a finding that is not in the evidence. ``` ## 4. Before and after grounding ### Before: "Make a compliance log for PSY 101" > Example answer: PSY 101 Accessibility Compliance Log. Overall status: > Partially compliant (estimated 72%). Issues: missing alt text (high), > contrast (medium), captions (high), keyboard navigation (medium). Estimated > remediation time: 6 hours. Recommendation: course is substantially > compliant pending minor fixes. A number with no source, a percentage nobody can defend, a "compliant" that would not survive the first question, and no dates, names or evidence. It is exactly the kind of log that causes problems later. ### After: given GLOW's reports for the lecture, the gradebook and the lab handout The evidence, from GLOW: ```text psy101-week3-lecture.pptx score 58 2 CRITICAL `PPTX-SLIDE-TITLE` Slide has no title or the title placeholder is empty 1 MEDIUM `PPTX-READING-ORDER` Reading order differs from visual layout psy101-gradebook.xlsx score 54 1 MEDIUM `XLSX-COLOR-ONLY` 4 empty cells with background color may convey meaning through color alone 3 MEDIUM `XLSX-MERGED-CELLS` Merged range A1:F1 disrupts screen reader navigation psy101-lab1-stroop.pdf score 50 1 CRITICAL `PDF-TAGGED` PDF is not tagged ``` > Example answer (first rows; dated 16 November 2026): > > | File | Barrier | WCAG | Severity | Priority | Reason | Evidence | Reviewer | Status | > |---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---| > | Lab 1 handout | Not tagged; structure unavailable to screen readers | [1.3.1](https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/info-and-relationships.html) | Critical | 1 | Due Friday; blocks completing graded work | GLOW `PDF-TAGGED` | S.O. | Proposed | > | Week 3 lecture | Two slides without titles | [2.4.6](https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/headings-and-labels.html) | Critical | 2 | Posted now; slows but does not block | GLOW `PPTX-SLIDE-TITLE` | S.O. | Proposed | > | Week 3 lecture | Reading order out of sequence on one slide | [1.3.2](https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/meaningful-sequence.html) | Medium | 2 | Same file, same fix session | GLOW `PPTX-READING-ORDER` | S.O. | Proposed | > | Gradebook | Status shown by color only | [1.4.1](https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/use-of-color.html) | Medium | 3 | Instructor-facing template; fix before grades post | GLOW `XLSX-COLOR-ONLY` | S.O. | Proposed | > > For leadership: PSY 101 checked 16 November, 3 files, 5 finding types. > The one barrier that blocks graded work is first, with a fix due before > Friday. Nothing here is marked compliant; all priorities await approval. > > Not in this evidence: the lab's form fields and its color-dependent > exercise need a person to check; the slides' "image.png" alt text passes > the checker and should not. What changed: every row has a source, a date and a reviewer, priorities have reasons a person can disagree with, and the gaps in the evidence are written down instead of hidden. ## 5. In the collection Shared from the share page in about a minute, as `agents//remediation-log-keeper/SKILL.md`, committed in Sam's name. ## 6. In the team The coordinator runs the specialists across the whole course, then hands every finding to Sam's log keeper last. The office's work becomes one log, which is the part leadership actually reads. ## 7. Sam's 30-day plan Each row is one part of the plan, and the answer. | Question | Sam's answer | |---|---| | One workflow | Every course review ends as log entries, not an email | | One partner | The registrar's office, who can tell us which courses have the most students | | One safeguard | Nothing leaves "proposed" without my initials | | First step this week | Log the ten highest-enrollment courses | | Who needs to know | The CIO and general counsel | | What it looks like if it worked | When asked "where are we", I send a link, not a spreadsheet named FINAL_final_v4 |