CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

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.

55

Quality

62%

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-linter/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

57%

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

The skill body is well-structured with a clean one-level reference to references/rule.md, but it spends tokens restating what linting does and gives mostly abstract guidance instead of executable config examples, with no explicit validation feedback loop in its workflow.

Suggestions

Cut the redundant intro and the Check/Fix/Explain prose that explains what linting is; assume Claude's competence and keep only what is non-obvious.

Add concrete, copy-paste-ready guidance such as an example .eslintrc config block, named rule sets, and a sample fix command instead of abstract descriptions.

Make the workflow explicit with a lint -> review errors -> fix -> re-lint validation loop, including a CI checkpoint.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient, but the intro ('Linting catches bugs before runtime, enforces team coding standards...') and the Check/Fix/Explain sections restate what linting does — concepts Claude already knows — and the Explain section is pure descriptive fluff.

2 / 3

Actionability

Offers one executable command ('pnpm dlx eslint --init') and named configs (eslint:recommended, @typescript-eslint), but the Check, Fix, Explain, and Code Review sections are abstract descriptions ('Configure ESLint with appropriate rules and plugins', 'fix all linting errors') with no config snippets or example rules.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

The Quick Reference lists steps (set up ESLint, use shared configs, integrate with editor, add to CI), but there is no explicit validation checkpoint or lint -> fix -> re-lint feedback loop, which the rubric requires for a score of 3.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clear sectioned overview (Quick Reference, Check, Fix, Explain, Code Review) with a well-signaled one-level-deep pointer to references/rule.md for full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance; the referenced file exists.

3 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

67%

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 provides an explicit 'Use when' trigger and names the JavaScript-linting niche, satisfying completeness. However, its actions are generic review/inspect verbs and its trigger terms lean jargon-heavy while missing common variations like 'ESLint'.

Suggestions

Replace generic verbs ('reviewing', 'Inspect') with concrete actions (e.g., 'Run ESLint, configure rules and plugins, surface lint errors in CI').

Add common natural trigger terms users would say, such as 'ESLint', 'linting errors', and 'JavaScript linting'.

Tighten the broad 'reviewing scripts, client components, bundles, or runtime behavior' scope so the skill is less likely to collide with general code-review skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('Lint JavaScript code') and actions ('reviewing scripts, client components, bundles', 'Inspect both source code and the browser execution path'), but the verbs are generic review/inspect actions rather than a comprehensive list of concrete operations like extract/fill/merge.

2 / 3

Completeness

Explicit 'Use when reviewing scripts, client components, bundles, or runtime behavior related to Lint JavaScript code' trigger answers when, while 'Lint JavaScript code' and 'Inspect both source code and the browser execution path' answer what.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Contains relevant keywords ('scripts', 'client components', 'bundles', 'Lint JavaScript code') but leans toward jargon ('runtime behavior', 'browser execution path') and omits common natural variations such as 'ESLint' or 'linting'.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Lint JavaScript code' defines a niche, but the broad 'reviewing scripts, client components, bundles, or runtime behavior' framing could overlap with general code-review or frontend-review skills.

2 / 3

Total

9

/

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.