web-design-guidelines
Review UI code for Web Interface Guidelines compliance. Use when asked to "review my UI", "check accessibility", "audit design", "review UX", or "check my site against best practices".
73
66%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
Pending
No eval scenarios have been run
Advisory
Suggest reviewing before use
Optimize this skill with Tessl
npx tessl skill review --optimize ./config/claude/skills/web-design-guidelines/SKILL.mdQuality
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 a clear 'Use when' clause containing multiple natural trigger phrases, which is its strongest aspect. The main weakness is that the 'what' portion is somewhat vague — it says 'review for compliance' but doesn't enumerate the specific checks or actions performed. The trigger terms, while natural, are broad enough to potentially conflict with other accessibility or design review skills.
Suggestions
Add 2-3 specific concrete actions to the 'what' portion, e.g., 'Checks color contrast, validates semantic HTML, audits keyboard navigation, and reviews responsive design patterns against Web Interface Guidelines.'
Narrow distinctiveness by mentioning the specific guideline source or unique aspects that differentiate this from general accessibility or UX review skills.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | It names the domain (UI code review) and the standard (Web Interface Guidelines compliance), but doesn't list specific concrete actions like 'check color contrast', 'validate ARIA labels', 'audit navigation patterns', etc. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (review UI code for Web Interface Guidelines compliance) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause with multiple trigger scenarios). | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes multiple natural trigger phrases users would actually say: 'review my UI', 'check accessibility', 'audit design', 'review UX', 'check my site against best practices' — these cover a good range of natural user language. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | While 'Web Interface Guidelines compliance' is somewhat specific, terms like 'check accessibility', 'audit design', and 'review UX' could overlap with general accessibility audit skills or design review skills. The specific standard helps but the trigger terms are broad. | 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 almost all substance to an externally fetched document. While the approach of fetching fresh guidelines is reasonable, the skill itself is redundant (repeating the same workflow twice), lacks concrete examples of input/output, and provides no error handling for the fetch step. It would benefit from consolidation and more actionable detail.
Suggestions
Consolidate the 'How It Works' and 'Usage' sections into a single workflow to eliminate redundancy — the fetch-read-check-output process is stated three times.
Add a concrete example showing sample input (a file snippet) and expected output (the file:line format) so Claude knows exactly what to produce even before fetching.
Add error handling guidance: what to do if the WebFetch call fails (e.g., retry, use cached version, or inform the user).
Remove the redundant mention of the URL — reference it once in a clearly labeled section.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is relatively short but has some redundancy — the 'How It Works' and 'Usage' sections largely repeat the same 4-step process. The instruction to fetch guidelines is stated three times across different sections. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | It provides a concrete URL to fetch and mentions using WebFetch, but lacks executable examples of the actual review command, the expected output format, or how to invoke the tool. The skill delegates all actual rule content to an external fetch, so Claude has no concrete guidance until runtime. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The steps are listed but there's no validation or error handling — what if the fetch fails? What if the fetched content format changes? There are no checkpoints or fallback instructions. The workflow is also duplicated between two sections without adding clarity. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill appropriately delegates detailed rules to an external source rather than inlining them, which is good. However, the structure within the file itself is poorly organized with redundant sections, and there's no example of expected output or reference to supplementary docs. | 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.
- Repository
- freekmurze/dotfiles
- Commit
2c6f6e8
- 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.