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".
76
69%
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 high-level — it says 'review for compliance' but doesn't enumerate the specific checks or actions performed. The trigger terms, while natural, are broad enough that they could conflict with other accessibility or UX-focused skills.
Suggestions
Add 2-3 specific concrete actions to the 'what' portion, e.g., 'Checks semantic HTML, keyboard navigation, color contrast, responsive layout, and interaction patterns against Web Interface Guidelines.'
Narrow or qualify the broader trigger terms to reduce conflict risk, e.g., specify 'Web Interface Guidelines' or 'WIG' as distinct trigger terms and clarify that general accessibility audits are also covered under this skill.
| 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' and 'review UX' could overlap with general accessibility audit skills or UX review skills. The specific standard helps but the trigger terms are broad enough to cause potential conflicts. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
57%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 structure and progressive disclosure are appropriate for this delegation pattern, the redundancy between 'How It Works' and 'Usage' sections wastes tokens, and the lack of any fallback behavior, example output, or error handling weakens both actionability and workflow clarity.
Suggestions
Merge the redundant 'How It Works' and 'Usage' sections into a single workflow section to eliminate repetition
Add a brief example of expected output format (e.g., `src/Button.tsx:42 — missing aria-label on interactive element`) so Claude knows what to produce even before fetching
Add error handling guidance for when the fetch fails (e.g., retry, or use cached rules, or inform the user)
| 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 actual rules and output format are entirely delegated to the fetched content. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | 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 feedback loops for the review process itself. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | For a simple skill that delegates its detailed rules to an external URL, the structure is appropriate. The content is short, well-organized into clear sections, and the external reference (the GitHub URL) is one level deep and clearly signaled. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 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.