link-text

Use when reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns related to Use descriptive link text. Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output where relevant.

Quality

81%

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

Quality

Content

85%

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

The body is concise, actionable, and well-structured with clean one-level-deep progressive disclosure to a real reference file. Its only weakness is workflow clarity: the review process is presented as thematic sections rather than an explicit sequenced workflow with verification checkpoints.

Suggestions

Convert the Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections into an explicit ordered review workflow (e.g. 1. Inspect native semantics, 2. Verify accessible name out of context, 3. Check keyboard/focus behavior, 4. Confirm the fix with axe/Lighthouse or a screen reader) to add a clear sequence.

Add an explicit verification checkpoint referencing the reference's 'Verification' section so reviewers confirm the fix in the rendered experience before closing.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and well-sectioned (Quick Reference, Check, Fix, Explain, Code Review) with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every section earns its place and detail is deferred to the reference.	3 / 3
Actionability	For an instruction-only skill the guidance is concrete and actionable — 'Avoid generic text like click here, read more', 'Use aria-label when visual design requires short text', 'Include file type and size for download links', plus a Code Review section telling Claude to flag exact elements, roles, labels, and focus behavior, meeting the actionable-guidance bar without inline code.	3 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The review process is presented as labeled phases (Check, Fix, Explain, Code Review) but lacks explicit sequenced steps or validation/verification checkpoints; for a review skill this is serviceable but does not include the verify-then-proceed feedback loop the rubric rewards.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a clear overview that appropriately defers full implementation to a single, well-signaled one-level-deep reference ('see references/rule.md'), which exists in the bundle, and the reference itself contains the code examples and detailed patterns.	3 / 3
	Total	11 / 12 Passed

Description

77%

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 is specific and explicitly pairs a 'what' with a 'Use when' trigger, but its trigger phrasing is slightly awkward and overlaps with broader accessibility-review skills. Tightening the trigger to natural link-text terms would raise distinctiveness.

Suggestions

Rewrite the awkward clause 'related to Use descriptive link text' into natural user phrasing, e.g. 'Use when reviewing link text, accessible names, or anchor labels — especially when links use generic text like "click here" or "read more".'

Add common natural trigger terms users would say ('link text', 'accessible link', 'click here', 'read more', 'WCAG 2.4.4') to improve trigger-term coverage.

Narrow the opening scope so it distinguishes this skill from general HTML/interactive-component accessibility review skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists multiple concrete actions — 'reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns' and 'inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output' — matching the 'lists multiple specific concrete actions' anchor.	3 / 3
Completeness	Clearly answers both what ('Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names...') and when ('Use when reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns related to...'), satisfying the explicit-trigger anchor.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	It opens with 'Use when reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns', which are plausible triggers, but it omits common natural variations users would say ('link text', 'click here', 'accessible links', 'WCAG link') and the phrase 'related to Use descriptive link text' reads as the rule title rather than a natural trigger.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The focus on 'Use descriptive link text' gives it a niche, but the broad opening 'reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns' overlaps with general accessibility-review skills, so it could trigger for adjacent a11y skills rather than only link-text review.	2 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 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/link-text/SKILL.md
Commit: 48405aa

Reviewed: about 10 hours 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.