CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

link-in-text-block

Use when applies to hyperlinks (`<a>` elements) that appear inline within paragraphs or text blocks. Does not apply to navigation menus, button-style links, or standalone links that are visually isolated from body text. Use when reviewing CSS that removes text-decoration from inline body copy links.

58

Quality

68%

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/link-in-text-block/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

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.

A well-structured, actionable overview body with concrete WCAG thresholds, a clear check/fix/explain flow, and exemplary use of a single one-level reference file. Its main weaknesses are redundancy (Quick Reference duplicates the Check/Fix/Explain thresholds) and a garbled Code Review paragraph that reads as unedited boilerplate.

Suggestions

Remove the Quick Reference section — its bullets (3:1/4.5:1 thresholds, underline option, hover/focus requirement) duplicate content already stated in Check, Fix, and Explain.

Fix or delete the incoherent Code Review sentence ("...that affect Make links in text blocks visually distinguishable") so it reads as a proper instruction.

Surface one concrete verification step in the body (e.g. "confirm with axe or Lighthouse and a keyboard pass") instead of leaving all verification detail in the reference.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The Quick Reference section restates the 3:1 and 4.5:1 thresholds that reappear in Check, Fix, and Explain, creating triple redundancy, and the Code Review paragraph is garbled boilerplate ("Review the rendered markup and interactive states that affect Make links in text blocks visually distinguishable"). Mostly efficient but needs tightening, fitting anchor 3 rather than 4.

3 / 5

Actionability

Gives concrete, executable guidance: exact thresholds ("at least 3:1 contrast ratio against the surrounding non-link text color AND at least 4.5:1 against the background"), specific CSS to inspect ("text-decoration: none", ":hover and :focus states"), and a concrete fix recipe with named alternatives ("underline appears, font-weight changes, or background-color is added"). Minor gaps: no inline code snippet or named checking tool in the body itself (both live in references/rule.md).

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A single-purpose review skill with an unambiguous Check → Fix → Explain sequence and explicit pass criteria; as a simple skill it could score 5, but the incoherent Code Review paragraph muddies the flow and verification steps (axe/Lighthouse, keyboard testing) are deferred entirely to the reference. Not a destructive or batch operation, so no cap applies.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

A ~35-line, well-sectioned overview that points to a single verified one-level-deep reference (references/rule.md, which holds the code examples and verification detail), clearly signaled at the end with its purpose stated ("full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance"). Fits the anchor 5 pattern of a clear overview with well-signaled, one-level-deep references.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

65%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.

A well-scoped, distinctive trigger description with explicit 'when' guidance and useful boundary exclusions, undermined by a missing 'what' (no stated actions like checking contrast or fixing violations) and a grammatically broken opening clause ("Use when applies to hyperlinks"). Natural keyword coverage is good but misses common synonyms such as "underline" and "link contrast".

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'what' statement, e.g. "Checks that inline text links are distinguishable from surrounding text by more than color (WCAG 2.1 SC 1.4.1), and flags or fixes violations" before the 'Use when' clauses.

Fix the broken opening clause "Use when applies to hyperlinks..." — rewrite as "Use when reviewing hyperlinks (`<a>` elements) that appear inline within paragraphs or text blocks".

Add natural trigger synonyms users would actually say: "underline", "link color", "link contrast", "link accessibility".

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names a precise domain (inline hyperlinks within paragraphs/text blocks) and one concrete action ("reviewing CSS that removes text-decoration from inline body copy links"), but never states what the skill itself does (check, fix, or flag violations). Fits anchor 3 — domain plus 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive; not 4 since no list of specific actions is given.

3 / 5

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit and strong ("Use when applies to hyperlinks... Use when reviewing CSS that removes text-decoration..." with clear scope exclusions), but the 'what' — what the skill does when triggered — is only weakly implied from the reviewing context. Falls between anchors 2 and 3; the detailed explicit trigger guidance keeps it at 3, but it cannot reach 4 because no skill actions are ever stated.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural terms users would say: "hyperlinks", "<a> elements", "text blocks", "navigation menus, button-style links, or standalone links", "CSS", "text-decoration", "inline body copy links". A few common natural terms are missing ("underline", "link color", "link contrast", "accessibility"), so it fits anchor 4 rather than the comprehensive synonym coverage of anchor 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (inline body-copy links) with explicit exclusions ("Does not apply to navigation menus, button-style links, or standalone links that are visually isolated from body text") and distinct triggers (text-decoration removal on inline links). Minimal conflict risk with other skills.

5 / 5

Total

15

/

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.