CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

author-expertise

Use when auditing metadata, crawlability, structured data, or indexability related to Highlight author credentials and expertise. Verify the rendered HTML and HTTP response rather than relying only on source files.

59

Quality

68%

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/author-expertise/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

71%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 a well-organized overview with clean progressive disclosure to a real reference file and a clear audit workflow. Its main gap is actionability: the body gives directional guidance but pushes all executable code and verification commands into the reference, and the Explain section is a directive rather than guidance.

Suggestions

Inline one minimal verification snippet in the body (e.g. a curl/browser command to inspect rendered author-bio HTML and response headers) so the core action is executable without opening the reference.

Replace the meta-directive "Explain how author credentials impact search engine rankings" with a brief, concrete statement of the ranking impact (especially for YMYL) so the section itself carries the guidance.

Add an explicit validation checkpoint in the Code Review section (e.g. "Confirm the author-bio markup renders in the DOM after JS execution and that structured data validates") rather than only asking to describe verification.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean with tight Quick Reference bullets and short Check/Fix/Code Review sections; the only minor over-explanation is the opening E-E-A-T sentence, which states a concept Claude already knows.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete directional guidance is present ("Include a short bio", "Link to the author's social profiles", "Mention specific certifications", "verify the final page output"), but the body defers all actual code and verification commands to references/rule.md, and the "Explain" section is a meta-directive to Claude rather than actionable implementation guidance.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review structure gives a clear audit sequence and the Code Review section calls for verifying final page output, but explicit validation checkpoints and error-feedback loops live only in the referenced file, not in the body.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

A concise, well-sectioned overview points via a clearly signaled one-level-deep reference to references/rule.md (a real file) for full implementation details and code examples, making navigation easy with no nested references.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

66%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 an explicit trigger and a concrete verification directive, with good domain keyword coverage. Its weaknesses are the awkward template phrasing that blurs the "what", and overlap risk with sibling SEO-audit skills sharing the same broad trigger terms.

Suggestions

Rewrite to separate what from when cleanly, e.g. "Audit author bios and credentials for E-E-A-T signals. Use when reviewing author expertise, structured data, or metadata on a page."

Lead the trigger with author-specific terms (author bio, credentials, expertise, E-E-A-T) rather than generic crawlability/indexability to reduce overlap with sibling SEO rules.

Add a concrete outcome verb beyond "auditing/verifying" (e.g. "flag missing author bios and credential markup") to lift specificity.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the audit domain ("auditing metadata, crawlability, structured data, or indexability") and one concrete verification action ("Verify the rendered HTML and HTTP response rather than relying only on source files"), but the main verb "auditing" is applied to multiple targets rather than listing several distinct actions, so coverage is not comprehensive.

3 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly provides a "when" ("Use when auditing metadata, crawlability, structured data, or indexability...") and a "what" (audit those signals by verifying rendered HTML/HTTP), but the "what" is muddied by the awkward template-inserted phrase "related to Highlight author credentials and expertise", keeping it just below a clean 5.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural SEO-audit terms a user would actually say ("metadata", "crawlability", "structured data", "indexability", "rendered HTML", "HTTP response", "author credentials"), with only minor synonyms missing (e.g. schema markup, JSON-LD, rich results).

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The author-credentials topic narrows it, but the leading triggers (metadata, crawlability, structured data, indexability) are broad SEO-audit terms that would overlap with sibling frontendchecklist SEO rules, so it could still trigger for the wrong skill in that family.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

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.