CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

heading-hierarchy

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

64

Quality

77%

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/heading-hierarchy/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.

A well-organized, brief review skill that appropriately pushes detail to references/rule.md. It is weakest on actionability, since the body states what to check but keeps verification tooling generic and offloads executable specifics to the reference file.

Suggestions

Name a concrete verification tool inline (e.g., 'Use the HeadingsMap browser extension or axe DevTools to generate the heading outline') so the body is actionable without requiring the reference.

De-duplicate the 'never skip levels' and 'don't use headings for styling' rules across Quick Reference, Check, and Fix so each section adds distinct value.

Add a short feedback loop to the Check/Fix flow (e.g., 'Re-run the heading outline after fixes to confirm exactly one h1 and no skipped levels').

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and well-sectioned, but the Quick Reference, Check, and Fix sections repeat the same rules ('never skip levels', 'don't use headings for styling'), so not every token earns its place.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete checks are named ('verify exactly one h1', 'sequential order', 'generate a heading outline') but verification tooling is left generic ('accessibility tools', 'browser accessibility tooling or assistive tech') with the executable specifics deferred entirely to references/rule.md.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sequence with a Quick Reference checklist serves as the validation checkpoint, though there is no explicit feedback loop for error recovery.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

A concise overview body with a single, clearly signaled one-level-deep reference ('see references/rule.md') that exists in the bundle and holds the detailed code examples and framework guidance.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

83%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.

A strong, third-person description with an explicit 'Use when' trigger and concrete review actions. Its main weakness is that the listed actions are generic accessibility checks rather than tailored to heading hierarchy, creating mild overlap with sibling a11y skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Lists several concrete review actions ('inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output') but the actions are generic accessibility checks rather than heading-hierarchy-specific, leaving minor coverage gaps.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output') and when ('Use when reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns related to Use logical heading hierarchy') with a concrete trigger clause.

5 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-term coverage ('rendered HTML', 'interactive components', 'design-system patterns', 'heading hierarchy') that a user might say, though common variations like 'h1/h2' or 'heading structure' are absent.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'heading hierarchy' niche is distinct, but the broad accessibility-review phrasing (keyboard, focus, screen-reader) creates minor overlap risk with sibling accessibility skills.

4 / 5

Total

17

/

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.