CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

broken-html

Use when auditing metadata, crawlability, structured data, or indexability related to Fix malformed HTML structure. Verify the rendered HTML and HTTP response rather than relying only on source files.

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/broken-html/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

42%

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

The body is well-structured and correctly offloads detail to a real one-level reference, but it is largely abstract: it tells Claude to validate and fix HTML without concrete tooling, commands, or a verify→fix→re-verify loop. Actionability is the clear weak point.

Suggestions

Add concrete executable guidance to the body — e.g. a validation command or tool (W3C validator, html-validate, or a curl-and-inspect snippet for the rendered HTML/HTTP response) instead of 'Validate the HTML structure of the page'.

Turn the Check→Fix flow into a verify→fix→re-verify loop with an explicit validation checkpoint (re-run the validator / re-fetch the rendered HTML) before marking the rule satisfied.

Drop or shrink the opening impact paragraph and the 'Explain' section, since the crawling/accessibility consequences of malformed HTML are concepts Claude already knows.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly lean sectioned prose, but the opening paragraph ('Malformed HTML can cause rendering issues... may prevent search engine crawlers from...') and the 'Explain' section restate impact concepts Claude already knows, so it is not fully tight.

2 / 3

Actionability

The body only describes ('Validate the HTML structure...', 'Correct the malformed HTML by properly closing tags') with no concrete commands, tooling, or executable examples — the only code lives in references/rule.md, so it describes rather than instructs.

1 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sequence is present, but there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops even though this is a verify-then-fix audit workflow where re-verification matters.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview that clearly signals a single one-level-deep reference ('see references/rule.md'), and that file exists and holds the detailed code/standards — clean, shallow navigation.

3 / 3

Total

8

/

12

Passed

Description

92%

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 is concise, third-person, and leads with an explicit 'Use when' trigger while naming concrete audit/verification actions. Its main weakness is the awkward grammatical embedding of the rule title ('related to Fix malformed HTML structure') and trigger terms broad enough to overlap with sibling SEO skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'auditing metadata, crawlability, structured data, or indexability' and 'Verify the rendered HTML and HTTP response rather than relying only on source files' — rather than vague language.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (audit/verify rendered HTML and HTTP response) and when, opening with a clear 'Use when auditing...' trigger clause.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Uses natural SEO-audit terms a user would say ('metadata', 'crawlability', 'structured data', 'indexability', 'rendered HTML', 'HTTP response') with good coverage of common variations.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Anchored to the broken-HTML niche but the broad SEO triggers ('metadata', 'crawlability', 'structured data', 'indexability') could overlap with other frontendchecklist SEO skills, so it is not yet a clearly distinct niche.

2 / 3

Total

11

/

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.