CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

javascript-inline

Use when reviewing scripts, client components, bundles, or runtime behavior related to Avoid inline JavaScript. Inspect both source code and the browser execution path so fixes target the real bottleneck or bug.

63

Quality

75%

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/javascript-inline/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

72%

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

SKILL.md is a well-organized, token-efficient overview that correctly uses one-level-deep progressive disclosure to push executable examples into references/rule.md. Its gaps are the absence of in-body executable code and an explicit validation/verification workflow with checkpoints.

Suggestions

Add a short numbered review workflow with an explicit validation checkpoint (e.g. verify in browser / DevTools after moving handlers inline) rather than only implying the sequence via section headings.

Include one minimal copy-pasteable before/after snippet (onclick -> addEventListener) in the body so the core fix is actionable without opening the reference.

Surface the reference's Verification steps as a brief checklist in the body so verification is not solely deferred to references/rule.md.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is a lean overview (short intro, Quick Reference bullets, brief Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections) that offloads the bulk of detail to references/rule.md and largely assumes Claude's competence; mild repetition across Check/Fix does not undermine efficiency.

3 / 3

Actionability

Quick Reference gives concrete techniques ('Move onclick/onmouseover handlers to external JS files', 'Use addEventListener instead of inline event handlers') but the body itself contains no executable code — the copy-paste-ready examples live one level deep in references/rule.md.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The Check -> Fix -> Explain -> Code Review sections imply a sequence, but the body has no explicit numbered workflow or validation checkpoints; verification is only hinted at ('state how the change should be verified in the browser') and deferred to the reference.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview that clearly signals a single one-level-deep reference ('see references/rule.md'), which exists as a real file, with the heavy code and framework guidance appropriately split out for easy navigation.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

77%

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 an explicit 'Use when' trigger, and names concrete review surfaces and a source-plus-browser inspection methodology. Its main weakness is trigger coverage that omits common natural variations and uses broad surfaces that could overlap sibling skills.

Suggestions

Add natural trigger variations users would actually say, e.g. 'inline JS', 'onclick handlers', 'inline event handlers', or 'CSP violations'.

Narrow the broad surfaces ('scripts, client components, bundles, runtime behavior') or tie each explicitly to inline-JavaScript detection to reduce overlap with other frontend review skills.

Rephrase 'related to Avoid inline JavaScript' so the rule topic reads as a natural noun phrase rather than an embedded rule title.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Quotes 'reviewing scripts, client components, bundles, or runtime behavior' and 'Inspect both source code and the browser execution path so fixes target the real bottleneck' list multiple concrete review/inspection actions rather than vague language.

3 / 3

Completeness

The explicit 'Use when reviewing...' clause answers when, and the inspection/fix guidance answers what, satisfying both halves with an explicit trigger; not capped at 2 because a Use when clause is present.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like 'scripts, client components, bundles, runtime behavior, inline JavaScript' are developer-relevant, but common natural variations (inline JS, onclick handlers, event handlers, CSP) are missing and the phrase 'related to Avoid inline JavaScript' awkwardly embeds the rule title.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It is tied to the specific inline-JavaScript rule, but the broad triggers 'reviewing scripts, client components, bundles, or runtime behavior' could plausibly overlap with other frontend JS review skills.

2 / 3

Total

10

/

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.