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".
64
77%
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/data/02-designer-webguidelines/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 clear completeness, explicitly stating both what the skill does and when to use it. Its main weaknesses are a lack of specific concrete actions (what exactly does the review check?) and some potential overlap with other accessibility or UX review skills due to broad trigger terms.
Suggestions
Add specific concrete actions the skill performs, e.g., 'Checks color contrast ratios, validates semantic HTML, audits keyboard navigation, reviews responsive design patterns'
Differentiate from general accessibility or code review skills by emphasizing the specific 'Web Interface Guidelines' framework and what makes it distinct from a generic accessibility audit
| 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 a user might employ. | 3 / 3 |
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk | Terms like 'check accessibility' and 'review UX' could overlap with other accessibility-focused or UX review skills. The 'Web Interface Guidelines' reference adds some distinctiveness, but the trigger terms are broad enough to potentially conflict with general code review or accessibility audit skills. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Implementation
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This is a concise, well-structured skill that efficiently delegates the actual review rules to an external source. Its main weakness is that actionability depends entirely on successfully fetching external content, with no fallback, cached rules, or example output provided inline. The workflow is clear but lacks error handling for the critical fetch step.
Suggestions
Add a fallback or error handling step for when the WebFetch of the guidelines URL fails (e.g., 'If fetch fails, inform the user and suggest they provide the guidelines manually').
Include a brief example of the expected output format inline (e.g., a sample `file:line` finding) so Claude can produce correct output even if the fetched content is ambiguous or unavailable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill is lean and efficient. It doesn't explain what web interface guidelines are or how fetching works. Every section serves a purpose with no padding or unnecessary explanation. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | The skill provides a concrete URL and a clear process, but the actual review logic is entirely delegated to fetched external content. There are no concrete code examples, specific rules, or sample output formats within the skill itself—Claude must fetch and interpret external content to know what to do. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are listed clearly and sequenced, but there's no validation or error handling for common failure modes (e.g., what if the fetch fails, what if the URL is unreachable, what if the fetched content format changes). For a workflow that depends on an external fetch, missing fallback/validation steps is a gap. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | For a simple, single-purpose skill under 50 lines with no bundle files, the content is well-organized into clear sections (How It Works, Guidelines Source, Usage). No external references are needed beyond the guidelines URL, and the structure is easy to navigate. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |
Validation
90%Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.
Validation — 10 / 11 Passed
Validation for skill structure
| Criteria | Description | Result |
|---|---|---|
frontmatter_unknown_keys | Unknown frontmatter key(s) found; consider removing or moving to metadata | Warning |
Total | 10 / 11 Passed | |
- Repository
- majiayu000/claude-skill-registry
- Commit
eb39638
- 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.