content-without-css

Use when reviewing rendered HTML, layout components, or design-system patterns that may depend on presentation for meaning. Check the DOM order, semantic structure, form relationships, and whether CSS generated content carries essential information.

Quality

78%

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/content-without-css/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

72%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 well-structured and uses progressive disclosure effectively, keeping the overview lean while delegating executable examples to a single clearly signaled reference. Its main weakness is workflow clarity: the body presents an implied sequence without explicit validation checkpoints, which are relegated to the reference.

Suggestions

Add a short explicit verification step or checkpoint inline in the body (e.g., "Verify the fix by disabling author styles") rather than relying solely on references/rule.md.

Tighten the overlap between the Check, Explain, and Code Review sections to remove redundant phrasing.

Consider a brief numbered sequence (Check → Fix → Verify) to make the review workflow explicit in the overview.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and sectioned (Quick Reference, Check, Fix, Explain, Code Review) and mostly assumes Claude's competence, but the intro sentence restates well-known context and the Check/Explain/Code Review sections overlap slightly, so a few tokens could be trimmed.	4 / 5
Actionability	Quick Reference and Check/Fix give concrete, actionable directives ("Do not put essential labels... in CSS generated content", "Test key journeys with author styles disabled"); the executable HTML examples, Playwright snippet, and validator commands are appropriately delegated to references/rule.md.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sections imply a loose sequence, but there is no explicit numbered workflow or validation checkpoint in the body; concrete verification steps live only in the reference.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a clear overview with well-organized sections and a single, explicitly signaled one-level-deep reference ("see `references/rule.md`") that exists as a real file, making navigation easy.	5 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

83%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 is strong: it explicitly states both what the skill does and when to use it, with concrete review targets and a natural trigger clause. It is held back only by limited action-verb variety and minor overlap with general accessibility skills.

Suggestions

Vary the action verbs beyond "review/check" (e.g., add "audit", "flag", "verify") to broaden the specificity of described actions.

Add common synonyms such as "semantic HTML" or "accessibility" to the trigger terms so the description matches more natural user phrasing.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ("reviewing rendered HTML, layout components, or design-system patterns") and lists several concrete check targets ("DOM order, semantic structure, form relationships, and whether CSS generated content carries essential information"), but action variety is limited to review/check verbs, leaving a minor coverage gap.	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what ("Check the DOM order, semantic structure, form relationships, and whether CSS generated content carries essential information") and when ("Use when reviewing rendered HTML, layout components, or design-system patterns that may depend on presentation for meaning") with concrete trigger phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural terms users would say ("rendered HTML", "layout components", "design-system patterns", "CSS generated content") with a clear "Use when reviewing..." trigger, but misses common synonyms like "semantic HTML" or "accessibility".	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	Targets a distinct CSS-disabled content niche with specific triggers, but has minor overlap risk with broader semantic-HTML / accessibility review skills.	4 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 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/content-without-css/SKILL.md
Commit: 30756a7

Reviewed: 9 days 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.