CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

form-validation

Use when reviewing templates, rendered HTML, or shared components related to Validate forms accessibly. Validate the final browser-facing markup, not just the source framework abstraction. Distinguish between browser-posted forms and client-handled React forms so you do not over-report missing `method` or `action` as accessibility defects.

69

Quality

85%

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

SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

70%

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

A well-structured, lean review skill that offloads detail to a real one-level-deep reference and gives a clear review workflow. It loses points on conciseness (repetition and a soft 'Explain' section) and actionability (no concrete before/after markup examples).

Suggestions

Cut the 'Explain' section or fold its substance into another section to remove non-actionable filler.

De-duplicate the aria-describedby / required / fieldset guidance so it appears once (in Quick Reference or Check) rather than restated across Check and Fix.

Add a short before/after HTML snippet showing a field with aria-invalid and aria-describedby wired to error text, so the review guidance is concrete and copy-paste ready.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient and offloads detail to references/rule.md, but the 'Explain' section is soft filler and the Check/Fix sections repeat aria-describedby, required, and fieldset/legend points already in Quick Reference — the kind of tightening the score-2 anchor describes.

2 / 3

Actionability

Names concrete, actionable attributes and elements (aria-describedby, aria-invalid, required, aria-required, fieldset/legend) and tells the reviewer exactly what to flag, but provides no executable code or before/after markup examples, leaving the guidance concrete yet incomplete per the score-2 anchor.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

For this single-purpose review task the Quick Reference → Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sequence is clear and unambiguous; no destructive/batch validation checkpoint is required, so the feedback-loop cap does not apply and a simple skill can score 3.

3 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-organized into clear sections and points to a single, clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference (references/rule.md, confirmed to exist) for full details, matching the score-3 anchor for well-signaled navigation.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

100%

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, third-person description that states concrete actions, an explicit 'Use when' trigger, and explicit conflict-avoidance guidance. It answers both 'what' and 'when' concisely without fluff or over-claims.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions on a clearly scoped domain — 'reviewing templates, rendered HTML, or shared components', 'Validate the final browser-facing markup', and 'Distinguish between browser-posted forms and client-handled React forms' — matching the score-3 anchor rather than the partial score-2 anchor.

3 / 3

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Validate the final browser-facing markup, not just the source framework abstraction') and when ('Use when reviewing templates...'), with an explicit 'Use when' trigger — clearly above the score-2 anchor where 'when' is only implied.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

The 'Use when reviewing templates, rendered HTML, or shared components' clause uses natural phrasing a user would say, with good coverage of recognizable terms (templates, rendered HTML, shared components, React forms).

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is narrow and distinct, and it even carries anti-conflict guidance ('do not over-report missing method or action as accessibility defects'), making accidental triggering for the wrong skill unlikely.

3 / 3

Total

12

/

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.