CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

ai-ux-enhancements

Automated UX review rules optimized for AI-driven design evaluations, addressing gaps in usability and user empowerment. Complementary to laws-of-ux skill, focusing on efficiency, control, cognitive workload, learnability, and personalization.

52

Quality

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

65%

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-organized, genuinely actionable set of 12 automatable UX review rules with concrete thresholds and named tooling. Its weaker spots are conciseness (some preamble/redundancy) and the lack of progressive disclosure or an explicitly sequenced end-to-end review workflow.

Suggestions

Tighten the Background & Scope section and collapse repetitive per-rule framing to reduce token overhead.

Add a short explicit review workflow (select relevant rules → run priority checks 9/12/1 → score pass/fail + severity → assemble report) with the report structure spelled out.

Consider moving the per-rule automation-detail into a single reference file (e.g., RULES.md) so SKILL.md serves as a lean overview pointing one level deep.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body avoids explaining basic concepts Claude already knows and is well-structured, but the Background & Scope preamble and the full per-rule Check/Automation/Fail-message layout across 12 rules carry framing and redundancy that could be tightened.

2 / 3

Actionability

Each rule pairs a concrete "Check" with quantitative thresholds (e.g., "≥ 80%", "≤ 3 clicks", "tables > 20 rows", "WCAG 2.2 AA", "Lighthouse ≥ 90–95") and named tooling/scan targets (axe-core, WAVE, `aria-keyshortcuts`, `keydown`, `localStorage`, NLP similarity), giving specific actionable guidance appropriate for an instruction-only skill.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The Implementation Guidance gives a priority order, scoring scheme, tool-to-rule mapping, and skip conditions, but the end-to-end review process (how findings combine into the final structured report) is only lightly specified with no explicit checkpoints.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The content is well-organized into clear sections and grouped categories, but it is a single self-contained file (~110 lines) with all rule detail inline and no one-level-deep references, so it functions more as a monolithic ruleset than an overview pointing to deeper materials.

2 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

50%

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 competent and reasonably specific about the skill's domain and focus areas, and it clearly positions the skill as a complement to laws-of-ux. Its main weakness is the absence of an explicit "Use when..." trigger clause, which leaves the activation conditions implied rather than stated.

Suggestions

Add an explicit trigger clause, e.g., "Use when performing automated/programmatic UX or accessibility reviews, linting designs, or complementing Nielsen heuristics and Laws of UX findings."

Lead with a concrete action verb phrase (e.g., "Evaluates UIs against 12 automatable UX heuristics...") instead of the abstract "addressing gaps in usability".

Surface natural trigger terms users would actually say ("UX review", "accessibility review", "heuristic evaluation", "design lint") to improve trigger-term coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ("Automated UX review rules") and lists specific focus areas ("efficiency, control, cognitive workload, learnability, and personalization"), but uses abstract framing ("addressing gaps", "focusing on") rather than concrete enumerated actions like the score-3 anchor.

2 / 3

Completeness

It answers "what" (automated UX review rules targeting specific gap areas) but provides no explicit "Use when..." trigger clause; the "when" is only implied via "Complementary to laws-of-ux skill", which caps completeness at 2 per the guidelines.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It includes some natural terms a user might say ("UX review", "usability", "user empowerment") but leans technical/conceptual and omits common variations a user would actually voice (e.g., "accessibility review", "heuristic evaluation", "design audit").

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The explicit "Complementary to laws-of-ux skill, addressing gaps" framing carves a niche, but the lead phrase "Automated UX review rules" is broad and could overlap with general UX/accessibility skills, so it is not yet clearly unconflicting.

2 / 3

Total

8

/

12

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
RoleModel/rolemodel-skills
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.