CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

javascript-minification

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

49

Quality

54%

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

Quality

Content

50%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 is well-structured for progressive disclosure — a concise overview deferring all code examples to a real, one-level-deep reference file — but the body itself offers little actionable guidance: no commands, config examples, or detection methods, plus some rationale prose Claude already knows. Adding a concrete check method (e.g. inspect built asset sizes or run a detection command) and one Terser/Vite config snippet would lift both actionability and workflow clarity.

Suggestions

Add executable guidance to 'Fix' — e.g. a Terser CLI/config snippet or Vite/webpack production-build flags — instead of the abstract 'configure your build system'.

Give 'Check' a concrete detection method, such as inspecting built asset sizes for comments/whitespace or running a command, and add a validation checkpoint (rebuild and confirm size reduction).

Trim the motivational intro and the 'Explain' section, which restate minification benefits Claude already knows, keeping only the actionable rule content.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is short and sectioned, but includes explanation Claude already knows — the intro 'Unminified JavaScript adds hundreds of KB to page weight, slowing down load times especially on mobile networks' and the 'Explain' section restating well-known minification benefits, while 'Check' repeats the intro's rationale. This matches 'Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'; not a 2 because there is no heavy padding or tutorial prose, and not a 4 because two sections (intro, Explain) are clearly trimmable.

3 / 5

Actionability

Guidance stays at the hint level — 'Configure your build system to minify JavaScript files using tools like Terser, UglifyJS, or built-in framework minification' and 'Enable minification in your build tool (Vite, webpack, etc.)' — with zero commands, config snippets, or verification commands (no terser config, no `vite build --minify`, no way to detect unminified output). This matches 'Minimal concrete guidance; high-level hints but missing the specific steps to execute'; above a 1 because specific tools are named, below a 3 because nothing is executable or step-wise.

2 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sections give a recognizable sequence, but no validation checkpoint exists — nothing says how to confirm files are actually minified (inspect build output sizes, check for comments/whitespace, verify in the browser), and the 'Check' step has no method at all. This matches 'Steps listed but validation gaps; sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit'; not a 2 because the phases are coherent and clearly labeled.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The SKILL.md body is a lean overview with clear sections, and the 767-line implementation detail (code examples, framework guidance) is correctly split into a single one-level-deep reference, clearly signaled: 'For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see references/rule.md' (verified the file exists). This matches 'Clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references; content appropriately split; easy navigation'.

5 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

58%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 has an explicit 'Use when' trigger and stays in third person, but the templated phrase 'related to Minify all JavaScript files' reads awkwardly and the skill's actual capabilities (detect unminified JS in production builds, configure minification) are never stated. Trigger coverage relies on broad review-oriented terms rather than minification-specific vocabulary.

Suggestions

State the 'what' concretely, e.g. 'Verifies production JavaScript bundles are minified and configures build-tool minification (Terser, webpack, Vite)' instead of only describing review behavior.

Add natural minification trigger terms users would actually say — 'minify', 'minification', 'bundle size', 'production build' — rather than relying on generic phrases like 'reviewing scripts'.

Rewrite so the rule title integrates naturally (e.g. '...related to JavaScript minification') instead of the title-cased 'Minify all JavaScript files' embedded mid-sentence.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ("Minify all JavaScript files") and only two actions — "reviewing scripts, client components, bundles" and "Inspect both source code and the browser execution path" — without stating what the skill actually does (verify minification, configure build tooling). This matches the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'; it is above a 2 because concrete review targets are listed, but below a 4 because there is no enumeration of the skill's concrete capabilities.

3 / 5

Completeness

An explicit 'when' clause exists ("Use when reviewing scripts, client components, bundles, or runtime behavior") and a partial 'what' is present ("Inspect both source code and the browser execution path so fixes target the real bottleneck or bug"), but the 'what' never states the actual task — checking and fixing unminified JavaScript. Both halves exist with one weaker, matching 'Has both what and when; when could be more explicit or specific' territory; not a 5 because the 'what' is indirect and not a 3 because the 'when' is explicit rather than missing.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords are present ("scripts", "client components", "bundles", "runtime behavior", "browser execution path"), but common natural terms users would say — "minification", "build", "bundle size", "Terser", "production build" — are missing, and "Minify all JavaScript files" only appears as a title-cased phrase awkwardly embedded mid-sentence. This fits 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'; better than a 2 (keywords are domain-specific, not generic) but short of a 4's 'good keyword coverage'.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The minification niche is distinct, but the broad trigger surface — "reviewing scripts, client components, bundles, or runtime behavior" — would fire on nearly any frontend code-review request, overlapping with general JS review, bundler, and performance skills. This matches 'Somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills'; below a 4 because the trigger clause is broad rather than a 'minor overlap risk'.

3 / 5

Total

13

/

20

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.

Validation — 15 / 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.