dlitem

Use when reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns related to Wrap definition items in a definition list. Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output where relevant.

Quality

70%

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/dlitem/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

65%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 skill body is well-structured and token-efficient with excellent progressive disclosure to a real reference file, but its in-body guidance stops at high-level instructions without executable code or an explicit validation feedback loop for what is effectively markup manipulation.

Suggestions

Add a small inline code snippet showing the fix (orphaned dt/dd wrapped in a dl) so the body is actionable without requiring the reference file.

Include an explicit validation checkpoint in the workflow (e.g., re-run an axe/Lighthouse check or W3C validator after wrapping, and re-check the accessibility tree) to form a validate→fix→retry loop.

Replace the HTML-entity escapes (<dt>) with real tag names or fenced code blocks so the elements are unambiguous and copy-paste ready.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean with short, well-sectioned directives (Quick Reference, Check, Fix, Explain, Code Review) and assumes Claude's competence; the single rationale sentence and the meta-instructional "Explain" section are minor tokens that could be trimmed, keeping it just below 5.	4 / 5
Actionability	"Locate any dt or dd elements that are not children of a dl" and "Wrap orphaned dt and dd elements in a parent dl container" are concrete instructions, but the body contains no executable code or selectors (those live only in references/rule.md), leaving key implementation details missing.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A rough Check→Fix→Explain→Code Review sequence exists and the Code Review section mentions verifying with browser tooling, but there is no explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop, which the rubric requires for markup/document manipulation skills, capping this at 3.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a concise overview that clearly signals a single one-level-deep reference ("see `references/rule.md`") for full implementation details and code examples, and that file exists in the bundle, matching the clear-overview navigation anchor exactly.	5 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

75%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 clearly answers both what the skill does and when to use it, with concrete review actions and a specific niche anchor. It is held back from top scores by a broad trigger clause and review steps that are not uniquely specific to the dlitem rule.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description lists several concrete review actions ("Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output"), though they are generic accessibility-review steps not uniquely tied to the dlitem rule, leaving minor coverage gaps versus a 5.	4 / 5
Completeness	Both "what" (check semantics, inspect keyboard/focus/accessible-name/screen-reader behavior) and "when" ("Use when reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns...") are explicitly present, but the "when" clause is broad and could be more tightly tied to the specific dlitem trigger.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	It includes natural phrases a user might say ("reviewing rendered HTML", "definition list", "screen-reader output", "focus flow"), but lacks synonyms/variants that would push it to comprehensive 5-level coverage.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The niche anchor "Wrap definition items in a definition list" is distinct and low-conflict, but the opening "reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns" is broad enough to overlap with sibling accessibility skills, keeping it just below 5.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 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/dlitem/SKILL.md
Commit: 30756a7

Reviewed: 22 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.