CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

design-qa

Internal prototype QA helper. Use only after a Product Design prototype, URL-to-code build, or image-to-code build has a source visual target and a rendered implementation to compare before handoff. Do not use for broad UX critique, design critique, product audits, or flow reviews; route those user-facing requests to audit.

68

Quality

83%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%

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

A thorough, highly actionable QA workflow with clear sequencing and an explicit iteration/validation loop. Its main weaknesses are verbosity from repetition and inline duplication of the qa-rubric.md reference, which keeps conciseness and progressive disclosure at the mid level.

Suggestions

De-duplicate the "put source and implementation in the same comparison input" guidance so it appears once, and consolidate the inline Required Fidelity Surfaces list with the matching detail in references/qa-rubric.md to reduce overlap.

Trim the SKILL.md toward a leaner overview by moving the detailed fidelity-surface checklist fully into references/qa-rubric.md and keeping only the required-surface names and the report contract inline.

Consider folding the redundant "Review systematically" fidelity bullets (step 5) into the single Required Fidelity Surfaces section to remove the second inline copy.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is substantive and specialized (no basic-concept padding), but at ~144 lines it repeats itself — the "put the source image and implementation screenshot together in the same comparison input" instruction appears three times, and the inline Required Fidelity Surfaces section substantially duplicates references/qa-rubric.md, so it could be tightened.

2 / 3

Actionability

As an instruction-only skill it provides highly concrete, executable guidance: a numbered workflow, a copy-paste markdown output template, explicit required report fields, exact "final result must be exactly passed or blocked" contract, and concrete state lists (mobile/desktop, hover/focus/active, empty/loading/error).

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

It sequences a clear 6-step process with an explicit iteration feedback loop (record finding → apply fix → re-capture at same viewport/state → re-compare) and validation checkpoints (must check all fidelity surfaces, classify remaining differences, block handoff on P0/P1/P2), matching the anchor for clear sequence with validation and feedback loops.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The one bundle reference (references/qa-rubric.md) is real, one level deep, and clearly signaled, and sibling routing references are shallow; however the SKILL.md is long and detailed rather than a lean overview, and the inline Required Fidelity Surfaces and review-step content duplicates material that lives in the reference, so content is not cleanly split.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

90%

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

A strong, well-scoped description that gives explicit trigger guidance and clear negative boundaries with routing to a sibling skill. Its only weakness is that the underlying skill is single-purpose, so it names a focused comparison action rather than many concrete capabilities.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

It names concrete actions ("compare a source visual target and a rendered implementation", "route those user-facing requests to audit") but the skill is a focused single-purpose QA comparison rather than multiple distinct concrete actions, matching the score-2 anchor that names domain and some actions without being comprehensive across many.

2 / 3

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what ("Internal prototype QA helper" that compares source vs. rendered implementation) and when via an explicit "Use only after a Product Design prototype, URL-to-code build, or image-to-code build..." trigger clause, satisfying the explicit-trigger requirement.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It includes concrete, recognizable trigger terms a user in this workflow would naturally invoke ("Product Design prototype", "URL-to-code build", "image-to-code build", "handoff", "compare before handoff"), giving good coverage of natural niche terms rather than a single generic phrase.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves out a clear niche and adds explicit anti-triggers ("Do not use for broad UX critique, design critique, product audits, or flow reviews; route those user-facing requests to audit"), making conflict with adjacent skills unlikely.

3 / 3

Total

11

/

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

relative_links

Relative link issues: 3 suspicious

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
XiaomiMiMo/MiMo-Code
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.