pleaseai/web-design
Review UI code for Web Interface Guidelines compliance
62
78%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
No eval scenarios have been run
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Quality
Discovery
82%Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.
This is a solid description with excellent trigger terms and completeness, clearly stating both what the skill does and when to use it. Its main weaknesses are a lack of specific concrete actions (what exactly does the review check?) and some potential overlap with other accessibility or UX review skills due to broad trigger terms.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Checks color contrast ratios, validates semantic HTML, audits keyboard navigation, reviews responsive layout patterns'
Differentiate from general accessibility or UX skills by emphasizing the specific 'Web Interface Guidelines' framework and what makes it distinct from WCAG audits or general UX heuristic reviews
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | It names the domain (UI code review) and the framework (Web Interface Guidelines compliance), but doesn't list specific concrete actions like 'check color contrast', 'validate ARIA labels', 'audit navigation patterns'. The description tells us the general activity but not the specific checks or outputs. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (review UI code for Web Interface Guidelines compliance) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause with multiple trigger phrases). The when clause is explicit and well-structured. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms that users would actually say: 'review my UI', 'check accessibility', 'audit design', 'review UX', 'check my site against best practices'. These cover multiple natural phrasings a user might employ. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Terms like 'check accessibility' and 'review UX' could overlap with general accessibility auditing skills or UX review skills. The 'Web Interface Guidelines' reference adds some specificity, but the trigger terms are broad enough to potentially conflict with other UI/UX-related skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
50%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill is a thin wrapper that delegates all substantive review logic to an externally fetched document. While the approach is reasonable for staying up-to-date, the skill itself provides little actionable guidance — no example output, no error handling for failed fetches, and redundant sections. The content would benefit from being more concise and adding concrete examples of expected output and failure modes.
Suggestions
Merge the redundant 'How It Works' and 'Usage' sections into a single workflow to eliminate repetition and improve conciseness.
Add an example of expected output format (e.g., `src/Button.tsx:42 — missing aria-label on interactive element`) so Claude knows what to produce even before fetching guidelines.
Add error handling guidance: what to do if the WebFetch call fails (e.g., retry, inform user, or fall back to cached/known rules).
Include a brief note about what the fetched guidelines contain (number of rules, categories) so Claude can verify the fetch returned valid content.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is relatively brief but has some redundancy — the 'How It Works' and 'Usage' sections largely repeat the same 4-step process. The explanation could be tightened by merging these sections. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | It provides a concrete URL to fetch and names the tool (WebFetch), but the actual review logic is entirely delegated to the fetched content. There's no executable code, no example output, and no fallback if the fetch fails. Claude must rely on external content for all the actual rules. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are listed but there's no validation or error handling — what if the fetch fails? What if the fetched content format changes? There's no checkpoint for verifying the guidelines were successfully retrieved before proceeding, and no feedback loop for handling issues. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is short and reasonably organized with clear sections, but it has no bundle files and no references to supporting documentation. The duplicate workflow description across 'How It Works' and 'Usage' hurts organization. For a skill that delegates entirely to fetched content, it could benefit from noting what to expect in that content. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 8 / 12 Passed |
Validation
100%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 11 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
No warnings or errors.
Reviewed
Table of Contents