CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

accesskeys

Use when reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns related to Ensure accesskey values are unique. Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output where relevant.

53

Quality

60%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/accesskeys/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

50%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is well-organized with clean progressive disclosure to a real reference file, but its instructional sections are vague one-liners with no concrete detection technique (no selector, command, or verification step), and it carries redundant padding (Quick Reference restatement, the Explain section). The structure is good; the substance is thin.

Suggestions

Add a concrete detection method to the Check section, e.g. a snippet like `document.querySelectorAll('[accesskey]')` grouped by value to surface duplicates.

Replace the vague 'note how to verify the fix with browser accessibility tooling' with an explicit verification step (e.g., re-run the duplicate check or test the shortcut with keyboard-only navigation) so the workflow has a real checkpoint.

Remove the 'Quick Reference' bullets and 'Explain' section, which restate the opening sentence and padding Claude does not need.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is short, but the 'Quick Reference' bullets nearly restate the opening sentence, the 'Explain' section ('Explain how duplicate access keys affect keyboard accessibility') is pure padding, and the harm of duplicate accesskeys is knowledge Claude already has. Mostly efficient with some unnecessary content that could be trimmed — matches anchor 3, not 4.

3 / 5

Actionability

Every instructional section is a one-line abstract hint: 'Check for duplicate accesskey attributes across the document' and 'Assign unique values to each accesskey attribute or remove redundant ones' give no technique — no selector, command, or tool. Matches anchor 2 (high-level hints missing the specific steps); not 3 because there is no partial or pseudocode-level concrete method anywhere in the body.

2 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Check → Fix → Code Review gives a rough sequence for this simple single-purpose skill, but verification is only alluded to ('note how to verify the fix with browser accessibility tooling') rather than given as an explicit checkpoint or feedback loop. Sequence present with implicit checkpoints — matches anchor 3, not 4.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

A short, well-sectioned overview with a clearly signaled, one-level-deep pointer to the real references/rule.md (verified to exist, 49 lines, containing the code example the body lacks) plus the source rule URL. Matches the anchor-5 pattern of a concise overview with well-signaled single-level references.

5 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

71%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description has an explicit and appropriate trigger clause and a reasonable set of concrete actions, but the core capability statement is malformed (the rule title 'Ensure accesskey values are unique' is embedded mid-sentence) and the tail-end inspection checklist is generic accessibility boilerplate that weakens distinctiveness against sibling skills. Solid but templated-feeling.

Suggestions

Lead with a verb-first capability statement (e.g., 'Detect duplicate accesskey attributes in rendered HTML and assign unique values') instead of embedding the rule title as 'related to Ensure accesskey values are unique'.

Trim the generic inspection checklist ('keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output') to terms specific to accesskey uniqueness so the description does not read as boilerplate shared with sibling accessibility-rule skills.

Add natural trigger synonyms such as 'keyboard shortcuts' or 'accessibility audit' to broaden natural keyword coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists several concrete inspection actions ('Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output') plus the accesskey domain. It falls short of 5 because the actions are generic accessibility-review boilerplate rather than accesskey-specific capabilities, and the core 'what' is grammatically embedded as 'related to Ensure accesskey values are unique' instead of a clean capability statement.

4 / 5

Completeness

Both parts are present: an explicit 'Use when reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns...' trigger clause, and a 'what' conveyed through the inspection actions. Not a 5 because the 'what' is awkwardly stated — the capability is bolted on as 'related to Ensure accesskey values are unique' rather than leading with a clear verb-first statement of what the skill does.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage including natural phrases a user would say: 'rendered HTML', 'interactive components', 'design-system patterns', 'accesskey', 'keyboard behavior'. Missing common synonyms such as 'keyboard shortcuts' or 'accessibility audit' that would merit a 5, but coverage exceeds the partial coverage of a 3.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The accesskey phrase anchors a specific niche, but the long generic inspection checklist ('keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output') is boilerplate likely shared across sibling accessibility-rule skills, creating overlap risk with closely related a11y review skills. Somewhat specific, but the generic action list dilutes distinction enough to keep it below 4.

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Validation

93%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 15 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

CriteriaDescriptionResult

metadata_version

'metadata.version' is missing

Warning

Total

15

/

16

Passed

Repository
thedaviddias/Front-End-Checklist
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.