CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

js-redirects

Use when auditing slow page loads, heavy assets, or rendering delays related to Avoid JavaScript-based redirects. Verify the actual bottleneck in DevTools, Lighthouse, or field data before recommending changes.

61

Quality

72%

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/js-redirects/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

78%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 body is a well-structured, lean overview for a simple performance rule: an unambiguous Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review workflow, concrete pattern-and-replacement guidance, and clean deferral of all code examples to a real, one-level-deep reference file. Its only weaknesses are minor — slight redundancy in explaining a latency concept Claude already knows, and post-fix verification steps that are delegated to the reference rather than summarized in the body.

Suggestions

Drop or merge one of the two statements of the round-trip latency mechanism (the intro sentence or the second Quick Reference bullet) to remove an explanation Claude already has.

Add a one-line verification checkpoint at the end of the workflow (e.g., 'After the change, confirm no 3xx or script-driven hop remains in the DevTools Network waterfall') so the post-fix loop is visible without opening the reference.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~30-line body is efficient overall, with a tidy Quick Reference and terse Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections. Minor trimming is possible: the intro sentence and the Quick Reference bullet ('JS redirects delay page load as the browser must first download and execute the script') both explain a latency mechanism Claude already knows.

4 / 5

Actionability

The body gives concrete, executable direction: it names the exact pattern to search for ('page-level redirects (e.g., window.location)') and the exact replacement ('server-side 301 or 302 redirects in your web server or edge configuration'). Not a 5 because the body itself contains no code or commands — those are deferred to the reference file — leaving minor gaps for common cases like an nginx or .htaccess snippet.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sequence is clear and unambiguous for a simple, single-purpose skill, and the Code Review section requires describing the measurement method used to confirm the issue. It misses a 5 because post-fix verification (confirming the redirect is gone and the metric improved) lives only in references/rule.md, not in the body's workflow.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a lean overview (~30 lines) that defers all implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance to a single, clearly signaled, one-level-deep pointer ('see references/rule.md'), and that file exists in the bundle with no further nested references. This matches 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references; content appropriately split'.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

66%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 and well-targeted 'Use when' clause with natural trigger vocabulary, but its 'what' side is under-specified: it describes verification behavior while leaving the skill's core remediation unstated, and the awkwardly embedded rule title ('related to Avoid JavaScript-based redirects') reads as machine-generated rather than a natural capability statement. It is serviceable but noticeably below a polished trigger description.

Suggestions

Rewrite the middle clause so the skill's actual capability is stated as a verb phrase, e.g., 'Detects JavaScript-based redirects (window.location) and replaces them with server-side 301/302 redirects' instead of embedding the rule title 'Avoid JavaScript-based redirects' verbatim.

State the remediation action explicitly — replacing client-side redirects with server-side or edge 301/302 redirects — so the 'what' is comprehensive rather than covering only the audit/verify step.

Add one distinctive keyword such as 'window.location' or 'client-side redirects' to reduce overlap with sibling page-performance skills that also trigger on 'slow page loads' or 'heavy assets'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain (JavaScript-based redirects / page-load performance) and one truly concrete action — "Verify the actual bottleneck in DevTools, Lighthouse, or field data" — but "auditing" and "recommending changes" are generic, and the core capability (replacing JS redirects with server-side 301/302) is never stated. It matches 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' rather than the level above, which requires several specific actions with only minor gaps.

3 / 5

Completeness

Both parts are present: an explicit trigger ("Use when auditing slow page loads, heavy assets, or rendering delays related to Avoid JavaScript-based redirects") and a stated what ("Verify the actual bottleneck in DevTools, Lighthouse, or field data before recommending changes"). Not a 5 because the 'what' is weakened by the verbatim rule title embedded mid-sentence, leaving the skill's actual purpose implicit.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrases like "slow page loads", "heavy assets", "rendering delays", "DevTools", and "Lighthouse" give good keyword coverage. A few natural terms are missing (e.g., "window.location", "page speed", bare "redirects"), so it sits at 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' rather than comprehensive synonym coverage.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The trailing phrase "related to Avoid JavaScript-based redirects" carves out a niche, but the leading trigger terms ("slow page loads, heavy assets, or rendering delays") are generic performance symptoms shared by many sibling performance skills, so it could overlap with closely related skills. It is somewhat specific but not clearly distinct enough for a 4.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

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.