https

Use when auditing whether a website or web application serves content exclusively over HTTPS with a valid certificate.

Quality

67%

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/https/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

65%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 body is well-structured and uses progressive disclosure effectively, keeping the overview lean while deferring executable detail to references/rule.md. Its weaknesses are that the body itself contains no inline executable code/commands and the Check/Fix/Review workflow lacks explicit, numbered validation checkpoints.

Suggestions

Add one minimal inline executable example (e.g., a `curl -I` check for the 301 redirect, or a `certbot --nginx` one-liner) so the body is actionable without requiring the reference file.

Make the audit workflow an explicit numbered sequence with a validation checkpoint, e.g. '1. Confirm HTTP→HTTPS returns 301; 2. Validate the certificate chain (SSL Labs A/A+); 3. Re-check after any config change.'

Tighten or move the opening 'Plain HTTP exposes...' sentence into the 'Explain' section so the overview opens with the actionable Check/Fix guidance.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is efficient with well-organized Quick Reference bullets and tight Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections; the only mild over-explanation is the opening sentence about plain HTTP exposure and the meta 'Explain' section, which keeps it at anchor 4 rather than the fully lean anchor 5.	4 / 5
Actionability	The body gives concrete high-level guidance ('301 redirect', 'Let's Encrypt/Certbot', 'SSL Labs ssllabs.com/ssltest — aim for A or A+') but no actual commands or code inline — all executable detail is deferred to references/rule.md — matching the 'some concrete guidance but incomplete' anchor rather than the mostly-executable anchor 4.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sequence is present and the Code Review section mentions verifying against a 'production-like response', but validation checkpoints are implicit and unnumbered rather than explicit, fitting anchor 3; it is a read-only audit so the destructive-cap does not apply.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep navigation ('see references/rule.md' for full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance), and the referenced file exists, matching the 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references' anchor.	5 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

70%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 is concise, uses third person, and includes an explicit 'Use when...' trigger with a clear, specific niche. Its main weakness is that the 'when' clause restates the 'what' rather than offering varied user-facing trigger phrases, and it names only a single audit action.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain (HTTPS auditing) and one concrete action — 'auditing whether a website or web application serves content exclusively over HTTPS with a valid certificate' — but lists only that single audit action rather than several specific actions, matching the '1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive' anchor and falling short of the multi-action anchor 4.	3 / 5
Completeness	Both 'what' (auditing HTTPS/certificate serving) and 'when' (explicit 'Use when...' clause) are present, but the 'when' largely restates the 'what' rather than adding concrete, varied trigger phrases, matching the anchor where 'when could be more explicit or specific' rather than the fully explicit anchor 5.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	It includes natural terms a user would say ('website', 'web application', 'HTTPS', 'valid certificate', 'auditing'), giving good keyword coverage; a few common synonyms such as SSL, TLS, or 'secure' are missing, so it sits at anchor 4 rather than the comprehensive anchor 5.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The HTTPS/certificate-audit niche is mostly distinct with clear triggers, but 'website or web application' security auditing has minor overlap risk with broader site-security skills, placing it at anchor 4 ('mostly distinct; minor overlap risk') rather than the minimal-conflict anchor 5.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 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/https/SKILL.md
Commit: 30756a7

Reviewed: 22 days 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.