CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

flashing-content

Use when reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns related to Prevent seizure-triggering flashing content. Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output where relevant.

58

Quality

67%

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/flashing-content/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

57%

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-organized, concise overview that correctly pushes detailed code and examples into a real, one-level-deep reference file. Its weaknesses are mild internal redundancy, a lack of executable guidance in the body itself, and an implicit rather than explicit validation/feedback loop in the review workflow.

Suggestions

Merge the Quick Reference bullets into the Check section and drop the Explain section's restatement of the intro's photosensitive-epilepsy sentence to remove duplication.

Surface at least one executable check in the body (e.g., a CSS animation-duration threshold snippet or a JS frame-rate check) and name a specific tool such as PEAT in the Fix section instead of 'animation tools'.

Add an explicit validate→fix→recheck feedback loop in the Check/Fix sections so the review workflow has a clear checkpoint before sign-off.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is short, but the 'Check' section restates the Quick Reference thresholds (3/sec, 25% viewport, GIFs/videos/CSS) and the 'Explain' section restates the intro's photosensitive-epilepsy point, so it could be tightened by merging redundant sections.

2 / 3

Actionability

Concrete thresholds (≤3 flashes/sec, <25% viewport) and named test targets (GIFs, videos, CSS animations) are present, but the body has no executable code/commands and defers all examples to references/rule.md, and 'Use animation tools to measure flash frequency' leaves the tool unspecified.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review form a loose topical flow rather than a sequenced process, and there is no explicit validate→fix→recheck checkpoint in the body — the 'note how to verify the fix' mention is implicit.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview with clear sections and a well-signaled, one-level-deep pointer to references/rule.md, which exists and holds the code examples, testing steps, and framework guidance without further nesting.

3 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

77%

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 is concrete and includes an explicit 'Use when' trigger, but its action list is generic accessibility-review boilerplate (semantics, keyboard, focus, screen-reader) that does not match the flashing-content rule's actual concerns (flash frequency, viewport area, animations). Trigger-term coverage is partial and conflict risk with sibling accessibility skills is moderate.

Suggestions

Replace the generic ARIA/semantics/keyboard boilerplate with flashing-specific actions: checking flash frequency (≤3/sec), flashing area (<25% viewport), and animation safety across GIFs, videos, and CSS keyframes.

Add natural user phrasings such as 'flashing animations', 'strobe effects', 'is this safe for photosensitive epilepsy', and 'WCAG 2.3.1' to improve trigger-term coverage.

Tighten the 'what' so it describes the skill's real review function (measure flash rate and flashing area) rather than generic screen-reader/keyboard inspection, reducing overlap with other accessibility skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — 'reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns', 'Check native semantics first', 'inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output' — matching the score-3 anchor for listing several specific actions rather than vague language.

3 / 3

Completeness

It explicitly states both what to do (review/check/inspect the listed targets) and when via an explicit 'Use when ...' trigger clause tied to the flashing-content rule, satisfying the score-3 anchor for answering both what and when.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

'flashing content' and 'rendered HTML'/'interactive components' are relevant keywords, but common user phrasings like 'flashing animations', 'strobe effects', 'GIFs/videos', 'seizure', or 'epilepsy' are missing, so coverage of natural terms is partial.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns ... Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output' phrasing is generic accessibility-review boilerplate shared across many accessibility skills, though the 'related to Prevent seizure-triggering flashing content' qualifier gives it a partial niche.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

12

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.