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".
58
66%
Does it follow best practices?
Impact
—
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 excellent trigger term coverage and a clear 'Use when' clause. Its main weakness is that the 'what' portion is somewhat general—it says 'review for compliance' but doesn't enumerate the specific checks or outputs. The trigger terms, while natural and varied, are broad enough that they could conflict with other UI/UX or accessibility-focused skills.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions to the 'what' portion, e.g., 'Checks color contrast, validates semantic HTML, audits keyboard navigation, reviews responsive layout patterns against Web Interface Guidelines.'
Narrow distinctiveness by specifying what makes this different from a general accessibility audit or code review skill, e.g., referencing the specific guideline set or the types of issues flagged.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Specificity | It names the domain (UI code review) and the framework (Web Interface Guidelines compliance), but doesn't list specific concrete actions like 'check color contrast', 'validate ARIA labels', 'audit navigation patterns'. The description tells us the general activity but not the specific checks or outputs. | 2 / 3 |
Completeness | Clearly answers both 'what' (review UI code for Web Interface Guidelines compliance) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when' clause with multiple trigger phrases). The when clause is explicit and well-structured. | 3 / 3 |
Trigger Term Quality | Includes strong natural trigger terms that users would actually say: 'review my UI', 'check accessibility', 'audit design', 'review UX', 'check my site against best practices'. These cover multiple natural phrasings users might employ. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | While 'Web Interface Guidelines compliance' is fairly specific, terms like 'review UX', 'audit design', and 'check accessibility' could overlap with general accessibility audit skills, design review skills, or code review skills. The specific framework reference helps but the trigger terms are broad enough to cause some conflict. | 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 essentially a thin wrapper that delegates all substantive content to an external URL. While concise and structured, it provides little standalone value — the actual rules, output format, and review logic all live in the fetched document. The redundancy between 'How It Works' and 'Usage' sections wastes tokens without adding clarity.
Suggestions
Merge the 'How It Works' and 'Usage' sections into a single workflow to eliminate redundancy
Add a fallback or error handling step for when the URL fetch fails (e.g., cached rules or user notification)
Include a brief example of expected output format inline so Claude knows the target format even before fetching
Consider embedding key rules or a summary directly in the skill so it has standalone value if the fetch is unavailable
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The content is relatively brief but has some redundancy — the 'How It Works' and 'Usage' sections largely repeat the same 4-step process. The explanation could be tightened by merging these sections. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | It provides a concrete URL to fetch and mentions using WebFetch, but the skill itself contains no executable code, no example output, and delegates all actual rules and format to an external URL. Claude doesn't know what the rules are without fetching, making the skill a thin wrapper with incomplete standalone guidance. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are listed and sequenced, but there's no validation checkpoint — no guidance on what to do if the fetch fails, if the fetched content format changes, or how to handle ambiguous rule matches. The workflow is simple enough but lacks error handling for the external dependency. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill is short and reasonably organized with clear sections, but there are no bundle files and no references to supporting documents. The 'How It Works' and 'Usage' sections overlap significantly, suggesting the structure could be improved. For a skill this simple, a single well-organized section would suffice. | 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.