CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

citations

Use when auditing metadata, crawlability, structured data, or indexability related to Cite authoritative external sources. Verify the rendered HTML and HTTP response rather than relying only on source files.

49

Quality

53%

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/citations/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 a lean, well-structured overview with excellent progressive disclosure to one real reference file, but it is only moderately actionable and its workflow lacks inline validation checkpoints. The brief E-E-A-T framing intro adds minor token overhead.

Suggestions

Tighten the opening E-E-A-T sentence or drop it; Claude already knows what E-E-A-T trustworthiness means, so the framing is unnecessary context.

Make the 'Check' step concrete with a pass/fail criterion, e.g. 'For each factual claim (statistics, quotes, dates), confirm an external authoritative link exists; flag any claim lacking one.'

Surface a short inline verification checkpoint in the body (e.g. 'After adding links, confirm each opens to the cited source and uses descriptive anchor text') rather than relying entirely on references/rule.md for validation.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is short and sectioned into tight bullets, but the opening sentence ('Citing authoritative sources is a key trust signal for E-E-A-T, demonstrating that your content is well-researched...') explains a concept Claude already knows and the E-E-A-T framing could be trimmed.

2 / 3

Actionability

It gives some concrete guidance with examples ('Add external links to reputable websites (e.g., .gov, .edu, or industry leaders)', 'Use descriptive anchor text') and directs flagging exact routes/templates, but the 'Check' step ('Review the content for any factual claims that should be backed up') stays general and lacks a concrete pass/fail criterion.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sequence is present and the Code Review section mentions describing how to verify the final page output, but explicit validation checkpoints and a validate→fix→retry feedback loop live only in the referenced file, not inline in the body.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview that delegates details to a single, clearly signaled one-level reference ('see references/rule.md'), and that bundle file exists, matching the well-organized overview-plus-reference pattern.

3 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

50%

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 includes an explicit 'Use when' trigger and names a domain plus a verification action, but it awkwardly embeds the rule title mid-sentence and frames the skill as a generic SEO audit rather than its true purpose of citing authoritative sources. Trigger terms and distinctiveness are accordingly only moderate.

Suggestions

Rewrite as a clean statement of the skill's purpose followed by a trigger, e.g. 'Adds and audits external citations to authoritative sources (.gov, .edu, industry leaders) that back factual claims. Use when reviewing E-E-A-T trustworthiness, adding source links, or auditing citations in content.'

Lead with natural trigger terms users would actually say ('citations', 'external links', 'authoritative sources', 'E-E-A-T') rather than generic SEO-audit jargon that overlaps with sibling rules.

Use third-person action verbs for the 'what' (e.g. 'Identifies unsupported factual claims and adds authoritative external links') instead of describing the verification method.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

It names a domain ('auditing metadata, crawlability, structured data, or indexability') and concrete actions ('Verify the rendered HTML and HTTP response'), but the skill's actual purpose — citing authoritative external sources — is only present as an awkwardly embedded title fragment rather than a listed action, so it stops short of comprehensive concrete actions.

2 / 3

Completeness

A 'Use when ...' trigger is present and a 'what' is stated ('Verify the rendered HTML and HTTP response'), but the 'what' describes the verification method rather than the skill's purpose, and the real intent is buried in the mangled title fragment, so the 'what does this do' is only weakly answered.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like 'metadata, crawlability, structured data, indexability' are relevant but read as technical audit jargon, and the natural terms a user would say for this skill ('citations', 'external links', 'sources', 'E-E-A-T') appear only inside the broken 'Cite authoritative external sources' fragment, leaving common variations missing.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The broad SEO-audit vocabulary ('metadata, crawlability, structured data, indexability') would overlap with sibling SEO-rule skills covering the same areas, and the only distinguishing element is the awkwardly embedded title, so it could still trigger for the wrong skill.

2 / 3

Total

8

/

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.