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 ./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 UI code for compliance' but doesn't enumerate the specific checks or actions performed. There's also moderate overlap risk 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.'
Improve distinctiveness by specifying what 'Web Interface Guidelines' refers to (e.g., a particular standard or framework) to differentiate from generic 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, design system skills, or broader code review 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 has a reasonable concept — delegating to a live external source for up-to-date guidelines — but suffers from internal redundancy (the fetch-read-check-output workflow is stated three times) and lacks concrete examples of expected output or error handling. The actionability is weakened by the complete reliance on fetched content with no fallback or inline summary of key rules.
Suggestions
Consolidate the 'How It Works' and 'Usage' sections into a single workflow to eliminate redundancy and improve conciseness.
Add a brief example showing expected input and output format (e.g., a sample `file:line` finding) so Claude knows the target format even before fetching.
Add error handling guidance for when the fetch fails (e.g., retry, or use cached/inline fallback rules).
Include at least a few key rules inline as a fallback or summary so the skill isn't entirely dependent on a successful external fetch.
| 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 sections without adding clarity. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill appropriately delegates detailed rules to an external source (the GitHub URL), which is a form of progressive disclosure. However, the internal structure is poorly organized with redundant sections that could be consolidated into a single clear workflow. | 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
- jdrhyne/agent-skills
- Commit
6768672
- 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.