object-alt

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

Quality

66%

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/object-alt/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

61%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 concise and well-structured as an overview that appropriately delegates detail to references/rule.md, with clear sectioning. Its weaker spots are actionability and workflow clarity, since concrete examples and verification checkpoints live in the reference rather than the body.

Suggestions

Inline one minimal executable example (e.g., a correct vs. incorrect <object> snippet) so the body is actionable without requiring the reference.

Add an explicit verification step to the Check/Fix flow (e.g., "Verify with the browser accessibility tree or axe") to introduce a checkpoint in the body.

Reference specific sections of rule.md by name (e.g., "See the Verification section in references/rule.md") to strengthen navigation and push progressive disclosure toward 5.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean with short, focused sections and no padding; the only mild over-explanation is the opening sentence about objects failing to load, which states something Claude already knows, keeping it just below 5.	4 / 5
Actionability	Guidance is concrete ("Check all <object> elements", "Add alternative text or a semantic fallback inside the <object> tags") but the executable specifics and code examples are delegated to references/rule.md rather than present in the body, leaving it with high-level instruction rather than fully copy-paste-ready material.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The Check, Fix, Explain, Code Review sections give a rough sequence, but the body lacks explicit validation or verification checkpoints (those live in the reference), so the workflow has implicit rather than explicit checkpoints.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a concise overview with well-signaled one-level-deep navigation to references/rule.md (a real file), and sections are clearly organized; it sits below 5 because the reference is a single file and the body sections are terse rather than richly navigated.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Description

71%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 is well-structured with an explicit Use-when trigger and several concrete review actions, scoring solidly across specificity, trigger terms, and completeness. Its main weakness is distinctiveness, since the broad accessibility-review framing could overlap with sibling accessibility skills.

Suggestions

Tighten the trigger to mention object-alt-specific terms (e.g., "<object> elements", "fallback content", "alternative text") to improve distinctiveness and trigger-term coverage.

Lead with the concrete capability (e.g., "Reviews <object> elements for accessible fallback content") before the broad review framing so the what is unambiguous.

Add natural synonyms users would say ("alt text", "fallback content") to raise trigger-term quality toward 5.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists several concrete review actions ("inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output") but they are generic accessibility-review actions rather than specific to object-alt, so it falls short of comprehensive coverage at 5.	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both what (reviewing accessibility of object-alt) and when ("Use when reviewing rendered HTML..."), with the trigger clause present so it is not capped at 3; the what is framed as review scope rather than a sharply concrete capability, keeping it below 5.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Good natural keywords ("rendered HTML", "interactive components", "accessible names", "screen-reader output") but missing common variations like "alt text", "fallback content", or file extensions that would push it to 5.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The "related to Provide alternative text for objects" scoping helps, but the broad "reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns" framing could overlap with general accessibility review skills, so it sits at somewhat-specific rather than mostly-distinct.	3 / 5
	Total	15 / 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/object-alt/SKILL.md
Commit: 30756a7

Reviewed: 9 days 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.