CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

aria-tooltip-name

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

56

Quality

64%

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/aria-tooltip-name/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

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 a lean, well-organized overview that correctly offloads detail to a single real reference file, giving it good progressive disclosure. It is weakened by repeated guidance across sections, meta-instructional padding, and the absence of executable examples or verification steps in the body itself.

Suggestions

De-duplicate the accessible-name/aria-describedby rule, which currently appears in both Quick Reference and Check, into a single authoritative statement.

Trim the Explain and Code Review sections of meta-instructional restatements of the title, or move them into the reference file.

Inline a minimal tooltip markup example or a one-line verification command in the body so the skill is actionable without forcing a reference load.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is short and well-sectioned, but the same guidance is restated across Quick Reference and Check ('have an accessible name or are referenced by aria-describedby'), and the Explain/Code Review sections add meta-instructional padding ('Explain how to correctly associate...', 'Review the rendered markup... related to Provide accessible names for tooltips') that could be trimmed.

3 / 5

Actionability

Guidance is concrete in direction ('have an accessible name or are referenced by aria-describedby', 'Assign an accessible name... referenced by the element it describes') but the body itself contains no executable code or specifics — those live entirely in the reference file — leaving it as high-level directives rather than copy-paste-ready instruction.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A categorical structure (Quick Reference → Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review) is present rather than a sequenced workflow, and the body has no validation or verification checkpoints — those are deferred to the reference — so it sits at the 'sequence present but checkpoints missing' anchor.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview with organized sections and a single one-level-deep reference to references/rule.md (a real, existing file), clearly signaled at the end; the only gap is that the pointer is placed at the bottom rather than inline near the section it extends.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

75%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 answers both 'what' and 'when' with an explicit 'Use when...' trigger and a concrete list of inspection actions, placing it solidly above the midpoint. It is held back from a top score by generic (rather than tooltip-specific) action wording and some overlap-prone opening phrasing.

Suggestions

Lead with a tooltip-specific capability statement (e.g., 'Reviews tooltip elements for accessible names and aria-describedby associations') before the generic inspection list.

Tighten the awkward embedded phrase 'related to Provide accessible names for tooltips' into natural trigger terms like 'tooltips', 'aria-describedby', or 'tooltip accessible name'.

Add a couple of natural synonyms/file-agnostic triggers users would say (e.g., 'hover text', 'screen-reader announcements') to broaden trigger coverage.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists several concrete inspection actions ('Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output'), though the actions are generic review steps rather than tooltip-specific operations, leaving minor coverage gaps versus the score-5 anchor.

4 / 5

Completeness

Provides an explicit 'Use when...' clause answering 'when', and the inspection list answers 'what'; both are present, but the 'what' is a list of checks rather than a crisp capability statement, so it falls short of the score-5 anchor.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural review phrasing ('rendered HTML', 'interactive components', 'design-system patterns', 'tooltips', 'keyboard behavior', 'screen-reader output') with good keyword coverage, but misses common synonyms and the embedded phrase 'Provide accessible names for tooltips' reads awkwardly as a trigger.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Scoped to tooltip accessible-name review within HTML/design-system contexts, giving it a clear niche, but the broad openers ('rendered HTML, interactive components, design-system patterns') create minor overlap risk with general accessibility-review skills.

4 / 5

Total

16

/

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.

Validation15 / 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.