orphan-pages

Use when auditing site architecture or investigating why specific pages have low organic traffic despite good content. Applies to any site with more than ~20 pages.

Quality

50%

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/orphan-pages/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

65%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 disclosed overview with a real one-level-deep reference, and its fix guidance is concrete. Its weaknesses are redundant concept explanation (intro/Quick Reference/Explain repeat each other and things Claude already knows) and a complete absence of verification steps after the batch link-addition work.

Suggestions

Remove the redundant Quick Reference bullets and the Explain section's restatement of the intro; a single 'why it matters' line plus the Check/Fix steps would cut roughly a third of the body.

Add a verification checkpoint to the workflow, e.g. "After adding links, re-crawl and confirm the orphan page now has ≥1 inbound internal link and the anchors resolve (no 404s)."

Consolidate Check and Code Review into one detection step — they currently describe the same crawl twice with slightly different report fields.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is short but carries redundancy: the intro sentence ("Orphan pages receive no PageRank... even when their content is excellent") is repeated nearly verbatim in Explain, and the Quick Reference bullets restate points made in Check/Fix/Explain. The Explain section also covers concepts Claude already knows (search engines discover pages by following links, PageRank basics), matching 'Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' rather than the minor-trimming profile of a 4.	3 / 5
Actionability	Guidance is concrete for an instruction-only skill: the Check section names the tool ("a site crawl (Screaming Frog or similar)"), the Fix section specifies "identify 2–5 relevant existing pages", gives an inline `<a href='...'>anchor text</a>` template, and says where to place links and how to write anchor text. This fits 'Mostly executable guidance; concrete code or commands with minor gaps' — not a 5 because there is no copy-paste-ready command or worked example in the body itself.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A sequence is present (Check → Fix → Code Review) but there is no validation or verification step — no re-crawl to confirm the orphans are resolved or the added links resolve. Since fixing orphan pages across a site is a batch operation, the rubric's cap applies: 'Missing validation/verification steps in workflows involving destructive or batch operations should cap workflow clarity at 3', matching the anchor 'Steps listed but validation gaps; sequence present but checkpoints missing'.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a 45-line overview and the single bundle file `references/rule.md` (which exists and holds the detection methods, code examples, and details) is clearly signaled at the end: "For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see `references/rule.md`." One level deep, appropriately split, easy navigation — matching the top anchor.	5 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

36%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 a clear, explicit trigger clause but completely omits what the skill does, which is its central weakness. It also misses the highest-signal trigger terms (orphan pages, internal links). Rewriting it to lead with the action (identify pages with zero inbound internal links and add contextual links) would lift both completeness and specificity.

Suggestions

State the 'what' explicitly, e.g. "Identifies pages with zero inbound internal links and adds contextual internal links to them" before the 'Use when' clause, so completeness reaches both what and when.

Include the key trigger terms users would actually say — "orphan pages", "internal links", "PageRank", "sitemap" — to improve trigger term quality and distinctiveness from adjacent SEO skills.

Narrow "auditing site architecture" to the specific symptom (pages that are indexed but get no traffic or inbound links) to reduce overlap with general site-audit skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the SEO/site-audit domain ("auditing site architecture", "low organic traffic") but states no concrete actions — nothing about identifying pages with zero inbound links or adding internal links. This matches the anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'; it is not a 1 because the problem domain is stated fairly precisely, and not a 3 because no 1-2 concrete actions are listed.	2 / 5
Completeness	Only the 'when' is present ("Use when auditing site architecture or investigating why specific pages have low organic traffic..."); the 'what' — what the skill actually does (find and fix orphan pages by adding internal links) — is entirely absent. This exactly matches the anchor 'only when is present without what', and cannot be a 3 or 4 since those require at least a clear 'what'.	2 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Phrases like "auditing site architecture", "low organic traffic", and "organic traffic" are natural for this domain, but the most likely user trigger terms — "orphan pages", "internal links", "PageRank", "sitemap" — are absent. Some relevant keywords exist but common variations and synonyms are missing, matching the score-3 anchor rather than the good-but-gapped coverage of a 4.	3 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The description is somewhat specific to a traffic/crawlability problem, but "auditing site architecture" is broad enough to overlap with other SEO audit skills (e.g., internal-links, crawl-budget, sitemap rules referenced in the bundle). Without the distinguishing term "orphan pages" the conflict risk with closely related SEO skills remains, fitting 'Somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills' rather than the mostly-distinct profile of a 4.	3 / 5
	Total	10 / 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/orphan-pages/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.