CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

navigation-landmark

Use when reviewing templates, rendered HTML, or shared components related to Use navigation landmark regions. Validate the final browser-facing markup, not just the source framework abstraction.

60

Quality

70%

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/navigation-landmark/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

72%

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, well-organized, and uses progressive disclosure cleanly by deferring code and verification detail to a single real reference file. The main gap is that actionable verification and a copy-paste-ready example are absent from the body itself, weakening actionability and the validation feedback loop.

Suggestions

Surface at least one minimal copy-paste-ready code snippet in the body (e.g. a labeled <nav aria-label=...> example) so the guidance is executable without opening the reference.

Add an explicit in-body validation step such as 'Verify each nav region has a unique aria-label/aria-labelledby and check for div-based or nested nav' to close the verify-fix-retry loop.

Tighten the Check/Fix/Explain sections, which repeat overlapping guidance, into a single concise review checklist.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean and well-sectioned, assumes Claude's competence, and avoids explaining what HTML, nav elements, or screen readers are, with every section earning its place.

3 / 3

Actionability

Guidance is concrete (named elements, specific aria-label strings like 'Main navigation'), but the body holds no executable example and the Check/Fix/Explain guidance is partly repetitive rather than fully copy-paste ready.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A review sequence (Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review) is present, but explicit validation checkpoints live only in the bundled rule.md rather than the body, so the verify-fix-retry loop is implicit.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview that points exactly one level deep to a single real reference file (references/rule.md, confirmed to exist), with a clearly signaled pointer and no nested references.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

67%

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 covers both what and when with an explicit trigger, but its action list is thin and its natural trigger vocabulary leans on generic frontend-review phrasing rather than accessibility-specific terms. Distinctiveness is moderate given overlap with sibling a11y-rule skills.

Suggestions

Replace generic framing ('reviewing templates, rendered HTML, or shared components') with explicit accessibility triggers a user would say, e.g. 'when reviewing nav elements, navigation landmarks, ARIA labels, or screen-reader navigation'.

Expand the action list beyond a single review/validate action to concrete behaviors like 'confirm each nav has a unique aria-label/aria-labelledby and flag div-based or unlabeled navigation'.

Rewrite in third person and drop the duplicated 'Use navigation landmark regions' phrase so the trigger reads cleanly and the skill is easier to distinguish from adjacent landmark/semantic-rule skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

It names the domain (templates, rendered HTML, shared components) and an action (review/validate markup), but only repeats essentially one action rather than listing multiple distinct concrete actions.

2 / 3

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what (validate the final browser-facing markup vs the framework abstraction) and when (explicit 'Use when reviewing...' clause), so neither element is missing or merely implied.

3 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords like 'templates', 'rendered HTML', and 'markup' are present, but the natural accessibility vocabulary a user would say ('nav element', 'screen reader', 'ARIA', 'navigation landmark') is largely missing and the trigger phrasing is awkward.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It is anchored to a specific rule niche (navigation landmarks), but the broad 'reviewing templates / rendered HTML / shared components' framing overlaps heavily with adjacent frontend a11y skills.

2 / 3

Total

9

/

12

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.

Validation15 / 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.