duplicate-id-active

Use when reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns related to Use unique IDs for active elements. Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output where relevant.

Quality

88%

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

Quality

Content

85%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

A concise, well-structured overview that properly offloads detail to a verified one-level-deep reference and presents a clear review workflow. The main gap is actionability: the Check and Fix sections stay at the prose-instruction level with no inline executable example, selector, or verification command.

Suggestions

Add a concrete detection method to the Check section, e.g. a snippet like `Object.entries(Array.from(document.querySelectorAll('[id]')).reduce((m,e)=>(m[e.id]=(m[e.id]||[]).concat(e),m),{})).filter(([_,v])=>v.length>1)` or a DevTools approach, instead of the generic "Search for duplicate id attributes".

Include a small inline markup example in the Fix section showing the corrected unique IDs (as rule.md does), so the guidance is copy-paste ready rather than prose-only.

Specify a concrete verification step in the body itself (e.g. "Run axe-core's duplicate-id-active rule or Lighthouse and confirm zero duplicate-ID findings") rather than deferring all verification detail to references/rule.md.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean (~30 lines) with short Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections and no over-explanation of basic HTML or accessibility concepts, so every section earns its place; it does not pad like the verbose anchor at 2.	3 / 3
Actionability	Check ("Search for duplicate id attributes") and Fix ("Assign a unique id to each active element") give concrete direction but no executable code, selector, or tool command, and key details are deferred to the reference, matching the some-guidance-but-incomplete anchor at 2 rather than copy-paste-ready at 3.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	As a simple single-purpose review skill under 50 lines it is clearly organized into Check, Fix, Explain, and Code Review with a verify-the-fix mention, meeting the simple-skills allowance for a 3 without needing a multi-step workflow.	3 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The body is an overview that signals a single one-level-deep reference ("see `references/rule.md`"), the referenced file exists and contains no nested file references, and detailed material is appropriately split out, matching the clear-overview-with-well-signaled-references anchor.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Description

92%

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

A strong description with concrete actions, natural trigger terms, and an explicit Use-when clause covering both what and when. Its main weakness is distinctiveness, since the generic accessibility-review framing could overlap with other rule skills and the rule name is awkwardly embedded as "related to Use unique IDs for active elements".

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions such as "reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components", "Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output", matching the multiple-specific-actions anchor rather than the single-domain anchor at 2.	3 / 3
Completeness	Explicitly states both what it does (review/check/inspect accessibility facets) and when to use it via the "Use when reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns" trigger clause, satisfying the what-AND-when anchor.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural terms a user would say during accessibility review (rendered HTML, interactive components, keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, screen-reader output) with good coverage, not just jargon.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The broad review phrasing ("rendering HTML, interactive components, design-system patterns") reads as shared boilerplate likely common to many accessibility rule skills, so it could overlap with sibling rules; only the embedded rule name narrows it, fitting the 2 anchor rather than a clear distinct niche at 3.	2 / 3
	Total	11 / 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/duplicate-id-active/SKILL.md
Commit: 48405aa

Reviewed: about 10 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.