CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

contact-page

Use when auditing metadata, crawlability, structured data, or indexability related to Create a comprehensive Contact page. Verify the rendered HTML and HTTP response rather than relying only on source files.

53

Quality

60%

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/contact-page/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

61%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.

The body is a concise, well-structured overview of a single SEO rule with a clean one-level reference to a real bundle file. Its main weaknesses are deferred actionability (code and verification live in the reference) and a workflow that lacks explicit validation checkpoints in the body itself.

Suggestions

Add an inline verification step or two to the Check/Fix flow (e.g., 'Confirm the /contact route returns 200 and the footer link resolves') so the workflow has an explicit checkpoint without forcing a jump to the reference.

Include one short inline code or markup snippet (e.g., a minimal contact-form or footer-link example) so the body is actionable on its own, not only via references/rule.md.

Tighten the opening sentence and the meta 'Explain' directive to remove mild contextual padding and lift conciseness toward a 5.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and well-organized into tight sections (Quick Reference, Check, Fix, Explain, Code Review) with only minor instances of over-explanation, such as the opening E-E-A-T sentence and the meta 'Explain' directive, that could be trimmed; not a 5 because of the slight contextual padding in the introduction.

4 / 5

Actionability

The Fix is concrete ('Create a `/contact` page and add a contact form, email address, and other relevant contact information') and Code Review names specific review targets, but executable implementation, code examples, and verification steps are deferred to the reference, leaving the body's guidance incomplete.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A rough sequence exists (Check -> Fix -> Explain -> Code Review), but validation checkpoints are only implicit and the actual verification procedure is deferred to references/rule.md rather than stated in the workflow.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clear overview that points to a real one-level-deep reference ('see `references/rule.md`') for full implementation details, with content appropriately split; minor gaps are the generic pointer text and the single reference file.

4 / 5

Total

14

/

20

Passed

Description

58%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.

The description explicitly provides both a trigger ('Use when...') and a concrete verification action, but the rule title 'Create a comprehensive Contact page' is awkwardly embedded mid-sentence, muddying clarity and distinctiveness. SEO trigger keywords are relevant but lack common synonyms, leaving it solidly mid-tier.

Suggestions

Rewrite the description so the rule title is not embedded mid-sentence; lead with the concrete action (e.g., 'Audits contact-page SEO...') followed by a clean 'Use when...' clause.

Add natural synonyms users would say, such as 'SEO check', 'indexing', or 'contact us page', to improve trigger term coverage.

Sharpen the 'what' beyond a single verification action by naming the specific outputs reviewed (metadata tags, robots directives, structured-data types) to reduce overlap with generic SEO-audit skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the audit domain (metadata, crawlability, structured data, indexability) and one concrete verification action ('Verify the rendered HTML and HTTP response rather than relying only on source files'), but coverage is limited to roughly two actions rather than a comprehensive list.

3 / 5

Completeness

Both 'what' ('Verify the rendered HTML and HTTP response rather than relying only on source files') and an explicit 'when' ('Use when auditing metadata, crawlability, structured data, or indexability...') are present, but the broken grammar of the embedded rule title and the narrow 'what' keep it short of a clean 5.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant SEO keywords are present (metadata, crawlability, structured data, indexability, Contact page), but the awkward embedded phrase 'related to Create a comprehensive Contact page' and absence of common synonyms (SEO, indexing, contact us) leave it between anchors 3 and 4, leaning down.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It is scoped to contact pages, but the audit activities (metadata, crawlability, structured data, indexability) are shared across general SEO-audit skills, so it could still overlap with closely related skills.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

20

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.