CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

carousel-accessibility

Use when reviewing templates, rendered HTML, or shared components related to Make carousels accessible. Validate the final browser-facing markup, not just the source framework abstraction.

52

Quality

57%

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/carousel-accessibility/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.

The content is well-organized and uses progressive disclosure effectively by pointing to a real references/rule.md for details, but it is hampered by repetition of the same checklist across four sections and a lack of any concrete example or verification step in the body itself.

Suggestions

Consolidate the four points into a single canonical checklist; have Check/Fix/Explain reference or build on it rather than restating it each time.

Include at least one concrete example in the body (e.g., a minimal accessible carousel snippet or a specific non-compliant pattern to flag) instead of deferring all specifics to the reference.

Add an explicit verification step to the review flow (e.g., confirm the fix renders the expected ARIA roles and controls) to close the workflow loop.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly lean (bulleted Quick Reference, short sections), but the same four points (pause/play, keyboard, ARIA, prefers-reduced-motion) are restated across Quick Reference, Check, Fix, and Explain, and the intro sentence explains WCAG concepts Claude already knows, so it could be tightened.

2 / 3

Actionability

Guidance is directional and names specific items (aria-live, prefers-reduced-motion, arrow keys) and what to flag, but the body provides no concrete example (e.g., a non-compliant snippet or expected ARIA pattern), deferring all specifics to references/rule.md.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review structure gives a recognizable review flow, but these read as parallel angles rather than a sequenced process, and there is no explicit verification checkpoint confirming a flagged issue is resolved.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an overview that clearly signals a single one-level-deep reference ('see references/rule.md' for full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance), and that file exists, matching the well-signaled one-level-deep anchor.

3 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

57%

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 targets a clear, distinctive niche and includes an explicit use-trigger, but it is grammatically malformed because the skill title ('Make carousels accessible') is embedded mid-sentence, weakening both specificity and the clarity of the 'what'. With cleanup it would likely score higher across the board.

Suggestions

Rewrite the description so the title is not embedded mid-sentence: state cleanly what the skill does (e.g., 'Reviews rendered carousel markup for WCAG compliance') followed by a separate 'Use when' trigger clause.

Broaden trigger-term coverage with natural variations users would say, such as 'slideshow', 'accessible carousel', and 'ARIA'.

Lead with the 'what' before the 'when' so the capability is unambiguous even before the trigger clause.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names concrete actions ('reviewing templates, rendered HTML, or shared components', 'Validate the final browser-facing markup') and the carousel-accessibility domain, but lists only two actions and the construction 'related to Make carousels accessible' is malformed, keeping it short of the multiple-specific-actions anchor.

2 / 3

Completeness

Both a 'Use when' trigger and a 'what' ('Validate the final browser-facing markup...') are present, but the 'what' is not cleanly stated because the skill title is mashed into the sentence, so it does not clearly answer both as the top anchor requires.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes relevant natural terms ('carousels', 'rendered HTML', 'templates', 'shared components') but misses common variations a user would say ('slideshow', 'accessible carousel', 'ARIA'), and the embedded title phrase disrupts readability.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is narrow and explicit — reviewing rendered carousel markup for accessibility, with the distinguishing note to validate browser-facing markup rather than framework abstractions — making it unlikely to trigger for unrelated skills.

3 / 3

Total

9

/

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.