CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

auditing

Audit a Studio-backed WordPress site for performance, accessibility, and visible frontend quality issues, then recommend or validate improvements.

60

Quality

70%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./plugins/codex/plugins/wordpress-studio/skills/auditing/SKILL.md

The canonical home for this skill is auditing in Automattic/build-with-wordpress

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

75%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is a well-structured, actionable audit workflow with concrete tools, numeric thresholds, and a re-test feedback loop. It stays lean and appropriately delegates sibling-tool detail to the `studio` skill.

Suggestions

Tighten a few redundant list restatements (e.g., repeat "Tell the user which scope" vs. the Principle section) to push conciseness toward 5.

Add a brief recovery checklist for the re-test step (what to do when a metric regresses) to make the feedback loop fully explicit.

Show one concrete need_for_speed invocation example to close the actionability gap.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — dense threshold tables and numbered warnings replace prose, and the "Important notes" add only non-obvious caveats (synthetic measurements, tradeoffs) rather than padding; it is not 5 because a few list items and restatements could be trimmed further.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete guidance throughout: named MCP tools (studio, need_for_speed, take_screenshot, inspect_design, record_workflow_event), specific numeric thresholds, and WordPress-specific remediation actions; it is not 5 because exact tool invocation syntax/examples are not given, leaving minor gaps.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear 7-step sequence (resolve → scope → performance → accessibility → visual QA → report → re-test) with explicit checkpoints via record_workflow_event (started/completed) and a re-test feedback loop comparing before versus after; it is not 5 because the recovery path on failed re-tests is implied rather than spelled out as a checklist.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, so the skill is single-file; content is well-organized into clearly signaled sections with a one-level pointer to the sibling `studio` skill and no nested references, matching the score-4 anchor for good structure rather than 5 (no file-level split to navigate).

4 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

66%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is specific and distinctive, clearly stating what the skill does across performance, accessibility, and frontend quality. Its main weakness is the absence of an explicit "Use when..." trigger clause, which caps completeness.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause such as "Use when the user wants to review, optimize, or verify an existing WordPress site" to lift completeness.

Surface one or two high-signal trigger synonyms (e.g., speed, Core Web Vitals, QA) in the description itself rather than only the body.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Audit a Studio-backed WordPress site for performance, accessibility, and visible frontend quality issues, then recommend or validate improvements" names the domain plus several concrete actions (audit three quality dimensions, recommend, validate), with only minor coverage gaps, matching the score-4 anchor rather than the more comprehensive score-5.

4 / 5

Completeness

The "what" is clear (audit + recommend/validate across three dimensions) but the description has no "Use when..." trigger clause, and the rubric caps completeness at 3 when explicit trigger guidance is missing; it is not 4 because the "when" is only weakly implied, and not 2 because the "what" is explicit.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms a user would say are present ("audit", "performance", "accessibility", "frontend quality", "WordPress site"), giving good keyword coverage; a few common variants (speed, QA, Core Web Vitals) appear only in the body, not the description, keeping it below 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Studio-backed WordPress site" carves a clear niche with distinct triggers and low conflict risk; it is not 5 because general "audit"/QA phrasing could mildly overlap with adjacent review skills, and not 3 because the WordPress+Studio scoping makes it mostly distinct.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

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.

Validation16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository
Automattic/build-with-wordpress
Reviewed

Table of Contents

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.