CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

error-handling

Use when reviewing scripts, client components, bundles, or runtime behavior related to Implement proper error handling. Inspect both source code and the browser execution path so fixes target the real bottleneck or bug.

57

Quality

66%

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/error-handling/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

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 body is a well-structured, token-efficient overview that offloads detail to a single clearly-signaled reference, but it lacks executable code and explicit verification checkpoints in the body itself.

Suggestions

Inline one minimal executable try-catch and one Error Boundary snippet in the body so the skill is actionable without opening the reference.

Surface a short verification checklist in the body (e.g. 'verify in the browser, check DevTools console/network, test the failure path') rather than only in the reference.

Collapse the Quick Reference bullets into the Check/Fix sections to remove the minor redundancy.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean — short bullets and brief section sentences with no padding or re-explanation of concepts Claude already knows — with only minor redundancy between the Quick Reference and Fix sections.

4 / 5

Actionability

The body offers high-level pattern guidance ('Wrap async operations in try-catch', 'Use Error Boundaries') but defers all executable code to references/rule.md, leaving the body itself without copy-paste-ready instructions.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review gives a loose sequence, but no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops appear in the body, even though the reference's Verification section has them.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

A concise overview body points cleanly to a single one-level-deep, real reference file (references/rule.md), with well-signaled navigation and no nested references.

5 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

67%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 successfully pairs a 'Use when' trigger with a scoped review domain, but the inserted title phrase 'Implement proper error handling' disrupts readability and the natural error-handling vocabulary users would say is underrepresented.

Suggestions

Rewrite the trigger as natural user phrasing, e.g. 'Use when reviewing JavaScript error handling — unhandled exceptions, missing try-catch, unhandled Promise rejections, or missing React error boundaries.'

Remove the awkward 'related to Implement proper error handling' clause and state the capability directly in third person.

Add concrete trigger synonyms (try-catch, error boundaries, unhandled rejections, error logging) so the skill surfaces for the terms users actually say.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain (scripts, client components, bundles, runtime behavior) and several concrete review actions (inspect source code and browser execution path), with only minor gaps from the awkward 'related to Implement proper error handling' phrasing.

4 / 5

Completeness

Both a 'what' (review/inspect for error handling) and an explicit 'Use when...' trigger are present, though the 'when' could be more cleanly tied to concrete error-handling scenarios.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural review-context terms ('reviewing scripts, client components, bundles') but the core trigger 'error handling' is buried in muddled phrasing and common synonyms like 'try-catch', 'error boundaries', or 'unhandled rejection' are absent.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Scoped to frontend/JS error-handling review with browser-execution emphasis makes it mostly distinct, though the broad 'reviewing scripts, client components, bundles' framing carries minor overlap risk with other frontend review skills.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

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.