cross-browser-testing

Use when reviewing CI coverage, automated checks, or test strategy related to Test across all major browsers. Focus on whether the rule is continuously verified, not just documented.

Quality

61%

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/cross-browser-testing/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

53%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 content is well-structured and uses progressive disclosure to push detail into references/rule.md, but the body leans on conceptual padding and vague one-line sections rather than concrete, executable review guidance with explicit verification checkpoints.

Suggestions

Remove the conceptual intro paragraph about why browsers differ; assume Claude knows this and lead with the actionable Quick Reference.

Replace vague Check/Fix/Explain one-liners with concrete, executable steps — e.g., a Playwright project matrix snippet and a CI grep/CI check command that detects whether cross-browser projects are wired into the pipeline.

Add an explicit validation checkpoint in Code Review (e.g., 'confirm a failing cross-browser test blocks the PR; if it only warns, flag it as a gap').

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The intro paragraph ('Users access your site from different browsers... a significant portion of users may experience broken layouts...') explains why cross-browser testing matters — a concept Claude already knows — which is padding, though the rest of the body is brief.	3 / 5
Actionability	Quick Reference gives some concrete pointers (Playwright, BrowserStack, caniuse.com, named browsers), but Check/Fix/Explain are vague one-liners ('Verify that this website works correctly', 'Fix browser-specific issues') and the body has no executable code, leaving key details to the reference file.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections form a rough sequence, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or a validate-fix-retry feedback loop for verifying that CI actually blocks regressions; this is a review skill without destructive ops, so no lower cap applies, but checkpoints are missing.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is an overview with clear sections and a single clearly-signaled, one-level-deep pointer to references/rule.md (a real file), with implementation detail split out appropriately; it falls short of 5 only because navigation could be richer and the one-liner sections are thin.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 Passed

Description

70%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 includes an explicit 'Use when...' trigger and names a recognizable domain with a couple of concrete review actions. It is mostly clear and distinct, but the awkwardly embedded rule title and thin action specificity keep it from the top band.

Suggestions

Reword the embedded 'Test across all major browsers' title into a natural capability phrase (e.g., 'verifying cross-browser compatibility in CI').

Add concrete verbs and synonyms users would say, such as 'browser compatibility', 'browser support', or 'Playwright/BrowserStack matrix'.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Quotes 'reviewing CI coverage, automated checks, or test strategy' name the domain plus 1-2 concrete review actions, but coverage is not comprehensive and 'Test across all major browsers' is inserted as a literal title rather than a concrete capability.	3 / 5
Completeness	The explicit 'Use when reviewing CI coverage, automated checks, or test strategy...' clause answers 'when', and the same phrase answers 'what'; the 'what' could be more specific and concrete, keeping it below a 5.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	'CI coverage', 'automated checks', and 'test strategy' are natural phrases a user would say; a few synonyms like 'browser compatibility' or 'browser support' are missing, so it stops just short of comprehensive.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The cross-browser scoping plus CI/test-strategy framing gives it a fairly distinct niche, but it could still overlap with broader testing-review skills, so minor overlap risk remains.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 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/cross-browser-testing/SKILL.md
Commit: 30756a7

Reviewed: 5 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.