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.

55

Quality

63%

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

71%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 content is a well-organized, concise overview with clean progressive disclosure to a real reference file and clear thresholds, but the in-body actionability is limited because specific measurement tooling and post-fix verification live only in the reference.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and avoids padding about what flashing/epilepsy means, with only minor redundancy between the 'Quick Reference' bullets and the 'Check' section that could be merged.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete thresholds are given ('no content flashes more than 3 times per second', 'less than 25% of the viewport'), but the measurement guidance is vague ('Use animation tools to measure flash frequency') with no specific tool or command in the body itself.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear Check → Fix → Code Review flow is present with concrete verification criteria, though there is no explicit re-verification step after a fix is applied.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview that clearly signals a single one-level-deep reference ('see references/rule.md'), and that reference file exists and holds the detailed implementation guidance.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

55%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 has an explicit 'Use when...' trigger and lists concrete actions, but it reads as a boilerplate accessibility-review description that is misaligned with the skill's actual flashing/seizure-safety topic, hurting trigger term quality and distinctiveness.

Suggestions

Rewrite the description around flashing/seizure triggers (e.g. 'Use when reviewing animations, GIFs, video, or CSS that may flash more than 3 times per second and risk triggering photosensitive seizures').

Replace the generic accessibility actions (semantics, keyboard, focus, screen-reader) with flashing-specific actions (measure flash frequency, check flashing area vs viewport, prefer fade/pulse alternatives).

Add natural trigger terms users would actually say: 'flashing', 'strobe', 'flicker', 'seizure', 'animation', 'GIF', 'reduced motion'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions ('Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output'), but these are generic accessibility actions rather than flashing-specific ones, so coverage of the skill's actual purpose is incomplete.

3 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly provides both a 'Use when...' trigger clause and a set of inspection actions (the 'what'), though the 'what' reads as generic accessibility review rather than the skill's flashing-focused purpose.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

'flashing content' and 'rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns' appear, but common natural terms users would say for this skill (seizure, strobe, animation, flashing GIF/video) are missing.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description is essentially a generic accessibility-review trigger ('reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns... keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, screen-reader output') with high overlap risk against any general accessibility skill; only the embedded title phrase narrows it.

2 / 5

Total

12

/

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.