aria-deprecated-role

Use when reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns related to Avoid using deprecated ARIA roles. Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output where relevant.

Quality

63%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/aria-deprecated-role/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

53%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 content is well-structured and appropriately offloads detail to a single real reference file, but the body itself is thin on actionable detail — no enumerated deprecated roles, no detection command or selector, and no inline examples — so a reader cannot execute the check without the reference.

Suggestions

Add a short inline list of commonly deprecated/abstract ARIA roles (e.g. directory, application as misused, abstract roles like widget) so the Check step is immediately executable.

Provide a concrete detection method in the body, such as an XPath/selector or an axe/Lighthouse rule name, instead of only 'search the codebase'.

Reference references/rule.md inline from the Check/Fix sections rather than only at the end, so navigation to detail is signaled where the reader needs it.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is short and mostly lean with sectioned guidance, but the Quick Reference bullets and Check/Fix/Explain sections repeat concepts (modern equivalents, long-term compatibility) already stated in the intro and covered in the reference file.	4 / 5
Actionability	The Check section only says to 'Search the codebase for deprecated ARIA roles like directory' with no list of deprecated roles, no tool/command, and no concrete detection steps; Fix and Explain are similarly abstract without examples in the body.	2 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The sections imply a review-then-fix-then-explain-then-verify flow, but there is no explicit sequence or validation checkpoint in the body (validation lives only in the reference file), and the destructive/batch cap is not triggered since this is a review skill.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is an overview that points clearly to references/rule.md (a real, one-level-deep file) for full details, with well-labeled Quick Reference/Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections; it stops short of 5 because the reference pointer is only mentioned once at the end rather than inline at each section.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

73%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 gives clear trigger guidance and a reasonable set of concrete accessibility checks, but it leads with the rule title rather than a sharp statement of the skill's core action and reads more like generic a11y review than a sharply scoped deprecated-ARIA-role detector.

Suggestions

Lead with the core action, e.g. 'Flags deprecated or abstract ARIA roles (e.g. directory) in rendered HTML and recommends native-element or modern-role replacements.'

Tighten trigger terms to the specific niche by adding phrases users actually say, like 'accessibility audit', 'a11y review', or 'ARIA roles'.

Move the generic checks (keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names) out of the description or tie them explicitly to deprecated-role verification so the description stays distinct from general accessibility skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the accessibility domain and several concrete inspection actions ('Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output'), giving broad but somewhat generic coverage rather than a comprehensive list of distinct actions.	4 / 5
Completeness	Has an explicit 'Use when ...' trigger clause and describes what to inspect, but the 'what' is framed as review guidance rather than a crisp statement of the skill's core action (flag deprecated ARIA roles), keeping it just below a 5.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural terms a user might say ('rendered HTML', 'interactive components', 'design-system patterns', 'keyboard behavior', 'screen-reader output'), though it omits synonyms like 'a11y', 'accessibility audit', or file/role names users would invoke.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The trigger is scoped to deprecated ARIA roles within accessibility review, which is a fairly distinct niche, but it overlaps with broader accessibility-review skills since the listed checks (keyboard, focus, names) are general a11y territory.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Validation

93%

Warnings & errors only

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

Criteria	Description	Result
metadata_version	'metadata.version' is missing	Warning

	Total	15 / 16 Passed

Repository: thedaviddias/Front-End-Checklist
Path: skills/aria-deprecated-role/SKILL.md
Commit: 30756a7

Reviewed: 25 days ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

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.