memory-leaks

Use when reviewing scripts, client components, bundles, or runtime behavior related to Prevent common memory leak patterns. Inspect both source code and the browser execution path so fixes target the real bottleneck or bug.

Quality

63%

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

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/memory-leaks/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

67%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, appropriately brief overview that delegates implementation depth to a real, clearly signaled reference file, with concrete per-mode directives. Its main weaknesses are a duplicated concept-explanation paragraph that adds no value and the absence of any inline verification signal for the fix workflow.

Suggestions

Cut the opening paragraph (or shrink it to one line) — it explains what a memory leak does, which Claude already knows, and it duplicates references/rule.md's 'Why It Matters' verbatim.

Add a one-line signal to the rule.md 'Verification' steps (e.g. 'Verify fixes in the browser per the Verification checklist in references/rule.md') so the fix workflow has an explicit validation checkpoint in SKILL.md.

Consider one minimal inline fix snippet (e.g. AbortController-based listener removal) or an explicit per-mode pointer to the matching rule.md section, so each mode maps directly to its detailed guidance.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The opening paragraph ('Memory leaks cause applications to consume increasing amounts of memory over time, eventually slowing the browser tab or crashing it...') explains a concept Claude already knows and is duplicated verbatim in references/rule.md's 'Why It Matters'. The rest of the body is tight and directive, so this fits 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation' rather than anchor 4's 'minor instances'.	3 / 5
Actionability	The Check and Fix directives are concrete ('cleaning up event listeners, clearing timers, canceling stale async requests, and releasing DOM references') and Quick Reference names exact tools (WeakMap/WeakSet, AbortController). No inline code, but per the rubric's instruction-skill note that is acceptable; it stays below 5 because no executable example or specific command appears in the body itself.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Each mode (Check, Fix, Explain, Code Review) is a single unambiguous directive, and the Code Review mode requires stating how the change should be verified in the browser. Not 5 because the four modes are presented as parallel directives without sequencing, and the actual validation steps (the rule.md Verification list) are not signaled from the body.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a concise overview with a clearly signaled, verified one-level-deep reference ('see references/rule.md' for implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance). Not 5 because the intro paragraph and Quick Reference bullets duplicate rule.md content inline instead of leaving it entirely to the reference.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 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 and reasonable 'Use when' trigger, but the 'what' is grammatically awkward ('related to Prevent common memory leak patterns'), the stated actions are generic, and the trigger scope is broad enough to risk conflicts with general code-review skills. It sits solidly at the midpoint of the rubric.

Suggestions

State the capability as a leading verb phrase, e.g. 'Detect and fix common JavaScript memory leak patterns: uncleaned event listeners, uncleared timers, retained DOM references, and closures holding large objects,' then keep 'Use when...' as the trigger clause.

Add natural trigger synonyms users would actually say — 'memory leak', 'event listener cleanup', 'timer cleanup', 'performance', 'RAM usage' — rather than only 'scripts, client components, bundles, runtime behavior'.

Narrow the trigger so it doesn't fire on every script review; scope it to memory/performance concerns, e.g. 'Use when reviewing scripts or client components for memory leaks, listener cleanup, or unbounded memory growth.'

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain ('memory leak patterns') and one action ('Inspect both source code and the browser execution path so fixes target the real bottleneck or bug'), but the action is generic and coverage of the actual capabilities (listener cleanup, timers, DOM references) is absent. It matches 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' rather than anchor 4's 'several specific actions'.	3 / 5
Completeness	Both parts are present: an explicit 'Use when reviewing scripts, client components, bundles, or runtime behavior...' clause and a what ('Prevent common memory leak patterns. Inspect both source code and the browser execution path'). Not 5 because the 'what' is awkwardly embedded in the 'related to' clause instead of being a cleanly stated leading capability, and not 3 because the 'when' is explicit rather than weakly implied.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant keywords ('memory leak patterns', 'client components', 'runtime behavior', 'scripts', 'bundles') but misses common natural variations users would say, such as 'event listener', 'timer', 'performance', or 'RAM usage'. Fits 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms' rather than anchor 4's good coverage.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The trigger 'reviewing scripts, client components, bundles, or runtime behavior' is broad enough to fire on nearly any frontend review, overlapping with generic code-review skills; only the 'memory leak patterns' qualifier narrows it. Matches 'somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills' rather than anchor 4's mostly-distinct profile.	3 / 5
	Total	13 / 20 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/memory-leaks/SKILL.md
Commit: 7bfd868

Reviewed: 1 day 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.