identical-links-same-purpose

Use when reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns related to Ensure identical links have consistent destinations. Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output where relevant.

Quality

68%

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/identical-links-same-purpose/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

61%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 clean, well-structured overview that appropriately defers detail to a single reference file. Its weaknesses are the absence of concrete in-body verification steps and examples, and no explicit validation checkpoints in the review workflow.

Suggestions

Add one concrete in-body example for identifying identical links (e.g., a snippet or a screen-reader link-list inspection step) so the core action is executable without opening the reference.

Insert an explicit validation/verification checkpoint in the Fix or Code Review section (e.g., 'Confirm each link text now maps to a single destination') to strengthen the workflow.

Promote the reference link into a clearly labeled section (e.g., '## Full guide — see references/rule.md') rather than placing it after a horizontal rule, improving navigation.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and section-driven with only minor over-explanation, namely the opening concept sentence ('When links with identical text lead to different destinations, it creates confusion...') that restates something Claude already knows.	4 / 5
Actionability	Guidance is concrete ('Identify any links on the page that have identical link text but point to different URLs' and 'Change the link text to be unique'), but it lacks specific verification steps, selectors, or examples for identifying identical links, deferring most actionable detail to references/rule.md.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The Check, Fix, Explain, and Code Review sections provide a rough sequence, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops for confirming a fix resolves the issue.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a concise overview that points to a single one-level-deep reference ('see references/rule.md', which exists), with clear section headers; the reference is signaled in prose after a separator rather than as a prominent navigational link, a minor organization gap.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Description

75%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 well-formed with an explicit 'Use when' trigger and a concrete list of review actions. Its main weakness is that the trigger contexts and actions are generic accessibility language shared across many a11y rules, slightly blurring distinctiveness.

Suggestions

Add rule-specific trigger phrases users would naturally say, such as 'same link text', 'identical links', or 'link list navigation', to improve distinctiveness and trigger term quality.

Tighten the 'when' clause so it references the user-facing scenario (e.g. 'Use when two links share identical text but point to different URLs') rather than restating the rule title.

Scope the listed actions to this rule's purpose (e.g. comparing link text vs. href destinations) instead of generic a11y checks.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists several concrete review actions ('Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output'), but they are generic accessibility checks rather than actions tailored to this specific rule, leaving minor coverage gaps.	4 / 5
Completeness	Both 'what' (the checking actions) and 'when' ('Use when reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns related to...') are present and explicit, but the 'when' clause is scoped by restating the rule title, which is slightly circular rather than fully concrete.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Good keyword coverage including 'rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns' plus 'screen-reader output' and 'accessible names', though natural rule-specific phrases like 'link text', 'same link text', or 'link list' are missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The rule name 'Ensure identical links have consistent destinations' gives it a clear niche, but the shared trigger contexts ('rendered HTML, interactive components, design-system patterns') overlap with other accessibility skills, creating minor conflict risk.	4 / 5
	Total	16 / 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/identical-links-same-purpose/SKILL.md
Commit: 30756a7

Reviewed: 9 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.