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.

58

Quality

67%

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

57%

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

A well-organized overview with excellent progressive disclosure to a verified one-level reference. The body itself is held back by mild redundancy, explanation of known concepts, and a lack of in-body verification checkpoints and executable examples.

Suggestions

Cut the explanatory intro and de-duplicate Quick Reference against the Check section so the body stays lean.

Add a short in-body verification step (e.g., "Confirm with axe/Lighthouse or the browser accessibility tree") so the workflow has an explicit checkpoint without forcing a jump to the reference.

Include one minimal in-body code snippet (a tooltip with aria-describedby) so the Check/Fix guidance is immediately actionable.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The intro explains concepts Claude already knows ("Tooltips often contain essential information...") and Quick Reference overlaps the Check section, so it is mostly efficient but could be tightened.

2 / 3

Actionability

Concrete hints like role="tooltip" and aria-describedby are present, but executable examples are offloaded to the reference and Code Review gives direction ("Flag exact elements...") rather than copy-ready checks.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections imply a sequence, but no verification or validation checkpoints appear in the body itself (they live only in references/rule.md).

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

A clear, sectioned overview points to a single well-signaled reference ("see references/rule.md"), which exists and is one level deep — matching the clean progressive-disclosure anchor.

3 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

77%

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

A solid, third-person description with an explicit Use-when trigger and concrete review actions. It is held back by clinical, awkward trigger phrasing and a broad review framing that risks overlap with adjacent accessibility skills.

Suggestions

Reword "related to Provide accessible names for tooltips" into natural user phrasing (e.g., "when the user mentions tooltips, hover/focus hints, or aria-describedby issues").

Narrow the trigger scope so it reads as tooltip-specific rather than a generic rendered-HTML/design-system review.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions: "Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output where relevant" — matches the multi-action anchor.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ("Check native semantics... inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output") and when (explicit "Use when..." trigger), so not capped at 2.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

"tooltips" is a natural term, but the surrounding phrasing ("reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns") is clinical and missing common user-facing variations.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The tooltip niche is distinct, but the broad trigger "reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns" could overlap with sibling accessibility review skills.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

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.