const-let

Use when reviewing scripts, client components, bundles, or runtime behavior related to Prefer const and let over var. Inspect both source code and the browser execution path so fixes target the real bottleneck or bug.

Quality

66%

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/const-let/SKILL.md

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 skill is well-structured with good progressive disclosure to a real reference file, but the body's guidance is abstract rather than executable and lacks an in-body validation loop. Tightening the redundant concept explanation would also improve token efficiency.

Suggestions

Add a small executable example or a concrete command (e.g. an ESLint no-var/prefer-const snippet or a grep one-liner) directly in the body so guidance is copy-paste ready.

Add a brief validation step in the body (e.g. 'after replacing, re-run the browser flow to confirm behavior is unchanged') rather than delegating all verification to the reference.

Remove the opening paragraph that restates var hoisting, since the same explanation already appears in references/rule.md's 'Why It Matters'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is mostly lean, but the opening paragraph ('var's function scope and hoisting behavior regularly causes bugs ...') explains a concept Claude already knows and partially duplicates the 'Why It Matters' section in rule.md, so it could be tightened — level 2 rather than 3.	2 / 3
Actionability	Sections like 'Scan this JavaScript file for any use of var' and 'Replace all var declarations with const or let' give directive but abstract guidance with no executable code or commands in the body itself (examples live only in references), matching the level-2 'concrete guidance but incomplete' anchor.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	Check -> Fix -> Explain -> Code Review provides a sequence, but there is no validation checkpoint or verify-then-retry loop in the body (verification is delegated to references), capping it at level 2.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a concise overview with well-organized sections and a clearly signaled one-level-deep reference to references/rule.md (a real file), matching the level-3 anchor.	3 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Description

75%

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 provides an explicit 'Use when...' trigger and a clear niche, but its action verbs are generic and it lacks the most natural user phrasings (e.g. 'var', 'const vs let'). It is solid and usable but could be sharpened with more concrete actions and common terminology.

Suggestions

Add concrete actions beyond generic 'reviewing'/'Inspect', e.g. 'Flag var declarations, replace with const/let, and verify block-scope behavior in the browser.'

Include the natural terms users actually say, such as 'var', 'const vs let', or 'variable declaration', alongside 'scripts' and 'client components'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('scripts, client components, bundles, or runtime behavior') and several actions ('reviewing', 'Inspect both source code and the browser execution path'), but the actions are generic review/inspect verbs rather than a comprehensive list of distinct concrete capabilities, so it sits at level 2 rather than 3.	2 / 3
Completeness	Explicitly states both what the skill does ('reviewing ... related to Prefer const and let over var') and when to use it via the 'Use when reviewing scripts, client components, bundles, or runtime behavior' clause, matching the level-3 anchor.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant terms a user might say ('scripts', 'client components', 'bundles', 'runtime behavior', 'source code', 'browser execution path'), but omits the most common phrasings users would actually utter ('var', 'const vs let', 'variable declaration'), leaving coverage incomplete at level 2.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The scoping phrase 'related to Prefer const and let over var' carves out a clear, narrow niche that is unlikely to trigger for unrelated skills, matching the level-3 distinct anchor.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 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/const-let/SKILL.md
Commit: 48405aa

Reviewed: about 8 hours 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.