autofocus-avoidance

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

Quality

71%

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/autofocus-avoidance/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

67%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.

A well-structured, concise overview for a simple accessibility review skill that correctly delegates depth to references/rule.md. The main gap is actionability: the body states what to do in prose but keeps the executable selectors and code in the reference file.

Suggestions

Add one inline executable snippet in the "Check" section, e.g. `document.querySelectorAll('[autofocus]')`, so the body is self-sufficient for the most common detection step.

Add a brief "Verify" checkpoint inline (e.g., confirm focus starts at page top with a screen reader / axe) rather than relying solely on references/rule.md for verification.

Tighten the overlap between the opening sentence and the "Explain" section so the same disorientation rationale is stated once.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence—"Search for autofocus attributes on form elements", "Remove autofocus attributes from form elements"—with only minor redundancy between the opening sentence and the "Explain" section, so it sits above the midpoint but short of the fully trimmed 5.	4 / 5
Actionability	Guidance is concrete in direction (search for autofocus attributes, remove them, use JS focus after interaction) but the executable specifics—the `[autofocus]` selector, the focus-after-interaction code—live in references/rule.md rather than the body, leaving key details deferred.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sections form a clear review sequence for this single-purpose, non-destructive skill; not a 5 because verification checkpoints are referenced out to rule.md rather than stated inline.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a concise overview that signals a single one-level-deep reference ("see `references/rule.md`", which exists), with good section organization; not a 5 because only one reference file is referenced and the in-body Quick Reference/Check/Fix content partially overlaps the reference.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 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.

A solid, third-person description that pairs an explicit "Use when" trigger with a concrete set of accessibility inspection actions tied to a specific rule. It is distinguishable and actionable, just short of comprehensive on trigger synonyms and capability framing.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists several concrete inspection actions—"Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output"—with only minor coverage gaps, fitting the "several specific actions" anchor rather than the comprehensive 5.	4 / 5
Completeness	Both halves are present: an explicit "Use when reviewing..." trigger and a concrete "what" (check native semantics, inspect keyboard/focus/names/screen-reader output); not a 5 because the "what" reads as an inspection list rather than a crisp capability statement with fully concrete trigger phrases.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Natural review-oriented keywords are present ("rendered HTML", "interactive components", "design-system patterns", "autofocus", "form fields", "screen-reader output"), giving good coverage with a few common synonyms missing, matching the 4 anchor.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The autofocus-specific tie ("related to Avoid autofocus on form fields") gives it a clear niche, though the broad "reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns" framing creates minor overlap with sibling accessibility review skills.	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/autofocus-avoidance/SKILL.md
Commit: 30756a7

Reviewed: 9 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.