javascript-linter

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

Quality

69%

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/javascript-linter/SKILL.md

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.

The SKILL.md body is a well-structured, concise overview that appropriately delegates detail to references/rule.md and provides concrete setup commands plus a clear review workflow. Minor redundancy in the Check/Fix/Explain sections and an implicit rather than explicit validation checkpoint keep it just short of top marks.

Suggestions

Trim redundancy between the intro line, Quick Reference, and the Check/Fix/Explain sections so each section adds distinct value.

Make the review validation checkpoint explicit (e.g. 'After flagging issues, confirm the fix by running ESLint and re-checking the browser path') to strengthen workflow_clarity.

Add one or two inline executable examples (e.g. a sample `eslint` command with --fix) so the body is actionable without always requiring the reference file.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is reasonably lean for an overview, but the intro line, Quick Reference, and Check/Fix/Explain sections repeat overlapping generic guidance that could be tightened.	3 / 5
Actionability	The Quick Reference gives concrete, executable commands (`pnpm dlx eslint --init`, shared configs, editor integration, CI) and points to references/rule.md for examples, with only minor gaps in the inline Check/Fix sections which stay high-level.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The Check -> Fix -> Explain -> Code Review sequence gives a clear review workflow, and the Code Review section names concrete verification (flag imports, event handlers, runtime side effects, state how to verify in browser), though an explicit validate-then-proceed checkpoint is implicit rather than stated.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a concise overview that offloads full implementation details to a clearly signaled one-level-deep reference (`references/rule.md`), with well-organized sections and easy navigation; the referenced file exists and holds the bulk detail.	5 / 5
	Total	16 / 20 Passed

Description

67%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 clearly states what the skill does and includes an explicit 'Use when' trigger, with concrete domain terms. Its main weaknesses are trigger-term coverage (missing natural synonyms like 'linting'/'ESLint') and slightly tangled what/when phrasing that could be sharper.

Suggestions

Add natural trigger terms users actually say, e.g. 'Use when the user mentions linting, ESLint, lint errors, or .js/.jsx code quality.'

Untangle the what/when phrasing: state the capability ('Reviews JavaScript code for lint errors and runtime issues') first, then a separate 'Use when...' clause.

Use consistent third-person phrasing and avoid embedding the literal rule title 'Lint JavaScript code' mid-sentence, which blurs the trigger.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (linting scripts, client components, bundles, runtime behavior) and several concrete actions (reviewing, inspecting source and browser execution path, targeting bottlenecks/bugs), with minor coverage gaps relative to a fully comprehensive action list.	4 / 5
Completeness	It provides a clear 'what' (review scripts, client components, bundles, runtime behavior) and an explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause, but the 'when' trigger is somewhat tangled with the action phrasing and could be more explicit and concrete.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	It includes relevant terms ('scripts', 'client components', 'bundles', 'runtime behavior', 'Lint JavaScript code') but omits common natural variations users would say like 'linting', 'ESLint', 'lint errors', or file extensions such as .js/.jsx.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The focus on JavaScript linting and browser execution paths is a fairly distinct niche with minor overlap risk against general code-review skills, though 'reviewing scripts' is broad enough to occasionally overlap.	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/javascript-linter/SKILL.md
Commit: 30756a7

Reviewed: 5 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.