file-upload-accessibility

Use when reviewing templates, rendered HTML, or shared components related to Make file uploads accessible. Validate the final browser-facing markup, not just the source framework abstraction.

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/file-upload-accessibility/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

72%

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

The body is appropriately concise and well-structured with a clean one-level reference to a real detail file, but its review guidance stays abstract and lacks the concrete markup examples and validation checkpoint that would make it directly actionable.

Suggestions

Add a short copy-paste example of an accessible file input, e.g. <label for="file">Upload</label><input id="file" type="file" accept="image/*" aria-describedby="file-help"> with a matching ARIA live region for progress.

Include a concrete validation checkpoint in the Code Review section, such as a checklist (label present, accept set, drop zone keyboard-operable, live region announces errors) and how to confirm each in the rendered HTML.

Either inline the key do/don't markup contrast or explicitly point to where in references/rule.md the executable examples live, so the overview signals what detail is available.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and well under 50 lines with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section (Quick Reference, Check, Fix, Explain, Code Review) earns its place.	3 / 3
Actionability	Guidance is concrete in intent ('accept attribute restrictions', 'ARIA live region feedback') but provides no executable examples such as <input type="file" accept="..."> markup, a label association pattern, or an ARIA live region snippet — it describes rather than gives copy-paste-ready instruction.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections give a recognizable sequence for this simple review skill, but no validation checkpoint or pass/fail criterion is stated, and the steps stay abstract rather than enumerated.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a concise overview with a clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference to references/rule.md (a real bundle file), matching the recommended overview-to-detail split.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

67%

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 provides an explicit trigger and a concrete review niche, satisfying completeness, but a malformed phrase where the skill name leaks into the prose degrades specificity, trigger quality, and distinctiveness.

Suggestions

Rewrite the description so the skill name does not intrude: e.g. 'Review templates, rendered HTML, and shared components to ensure file uploads are accessible. Use when auditing file-input markup, drag-and-drop zones, or upload feedback for screen reader and keyboard support.'

Add natural trigger terms users would actually say: 'file input', 'drag-and-drop upload', 'ARIA live region', 'screen reader', and 'keyboard accessible'.

Tighten the distinctiveness by naming the specific violations to flag (missing label, missing accept, non-keyboard drop zones) so it does not read like generic HTML review.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names a concrete domain (templates, rendered HTML, shared components) and a concrete action ('Validate the final browser-facing markup'), but the malformed phrase 'related to Make file uploads accessible' blurs the listed actions and undercuts comprehensive specificity.	2 / 3
Completeness	It has an explicit 'Use when ...' clause giving the trigger and states what to do (validate the final browser-facing markup), so both 'what' and 'when' are present.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant natural terms ('templates', 'rendered HTML', 'shared components', 'file uploads', 'markup'), but the awkward 'Make file uploads accessible' intrusion and absence of common variations like 'file input', 'drag-and-drop', or 'screen reader' leave coverage partial.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The niche (accessible file-upload markup review) is fairly distinct, but the garbled 'Make file uploads accessible' phrasing and broad 'shared components' wording leave it somewhat overlapping with general HTML/accessibility review skills.	2 / 3
	Total	9 / 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/file-upload-accessibility/SKILL.md
Commit: 48405aa

Reviewed: about 9 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.