CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

parallax-effects

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

62

Quality

74%

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/parallax-effects/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

77%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 overview with an unambiguous check-fix-explain workflow, an embedded validation checkpoint, and exemplary progressive disclosure through a single well-signaled reference that contains the full implementation detail. Its only real weakness is redundancy: the vestibular rationale is repeated three times and the Code Review section restates generic review boilerplate.

Suggestions

State the vestibular depth-mismatch rationale once (in the intro or Explain section) and drop the duplicates in Quick Reference and the other section, cutting roughly three lines of repeated content.

Trim or concretize the generic "Code Review" boilerplate ("Flag exact elements, roles, labels, focus behavior, or keyboard interactions") to focus on what parallax review actually flags — missing prefers-reduced-motion guards, content hidden in parallax-only layers, and absent motion toggles.

Optionally surface the manual verification steps from references/rule.md (enable OS "Reduce motion", confirm effects disable and content remains readable) as two or three explicit checklist lines in the Check section so validation does not depend on opening the reference.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The vestibular depth-mismatch fact is stated three times nearly verbatim (intro "mismatch between what the eyes see and what the inner ear senses—triggering dizziness, nausea, and vertigo", Quick Reference "Parallax creates depth mismatch triggering vestibular disorders", and Explain "create a depth mismatch that can trigger vestibular disorders"), and the Code Review section repeats generic review boilerplate. Mostly efficient, but the duplication could be tightened — the middle anchor.

3 / 5

Actionability

"Wrap parallax effects in @media (prefers-reduced-motion: no-preference) queries. Provide static fallbacks that convey the same content. Consider adding a user toggle to disable motion effects site-wide" is concrete, specific guidance naming the exact media feature, with full executable CSS/JS/React examples one hop away in references/rule.md. Not 5 because the body itself contains no inline executable example; above 3 because the instruction is specific and actionable rather than pseudocode-level.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

This is a simple, single-purpose skill whose action is unambiguous: Check gives detection criteria ("background and foreground move at different speeds") with an explicit validation checkpoint ("Verify these effects are disabled when prefers-reduced-motion is set, and essential content is accessible without the effect"), followed by Fix and Explain. Per the simple-skill guideline, the single clear action with an embedded verification step earns the top score.

5 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a lean overview under 50 lines with a single, clearly signaled one-level-deep reference — "For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see references/rule.md" — and that file exists and delivers exactly the promised CSS, JavaScript, React, and verification content. Content is appropriately split and easy to navigate.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

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 answers both what and when with several concrete review actions and the natural trigger phrase "parallax effects". Its main weaknesses are the awkwardly embedded rule title in the trigger clause and generic keyboard/focus/screen-reader boilerplate that is not specific to motion or parallax, weakening distinctiveness against sibling accessibility skills and missing motion-related trigger terms.

Suggestions

Add motion-specific natural trigger terms such as "prefers-reduced-motion", "reduced motion", "animation", or "vestibular" so users searching for motion-safety issues land on this skill.

Rewrite the trigger clause to state concrete conditions (e.g., "Use when reviewing pages with parallax scrolling, fixed backgrounds, or scroll-driven motion effects") instead of embedding the rule title "related to Provide alternatives to parallax effects".

Replace the generic keyboard-behavior/focus-flow/accessible-names boilerplate with actions this skill actually performs — checking that parallax is disabled under prefers-reduced-motion, verifying static fallbacks, and confirming a user motion toggle — to reduce overlap with sibling accessibility-rule skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

"Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output" lists several concrete review actions, matching the anchor for several specific actions with minor gaps. Not 3 because more than 1-2 actions are named; not 5 because coverage omits the motion-specific actions the skill actually performs (prefers-reduced-motion checks, static fallbacks, user toggle).

4 / 5

Completeness

Both what and when are present: "Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output" answers what, and "Use when reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns" answers when. The when clause is explicit but awkward — it embeds the rule title ("related to Provide alternatives to parallax effects") rather than stating concrete trigger phrases, so it does not clearly reach the top anchor.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

"parallax effects" is the natural phrase a user would say, alongside "rendered HTML", "interactive components", and "design-system patterns" — good keyword coverage, but natural terms like "prefers-reduced-motion", "reduced motion", and "vestibular" are missing, so it falls short of comprehensive synonym coverage.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"parallax effects" is a distinct niche trigger, but the broad "reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns" and the generic keyboard/focus/accessible-names inspection boilerplate would equally match sibling accessibility-rule skills, creating real overlap risk within the same skill family. It is more specific than purely broad phrasing (anchor 2) but the shared template text is more than a minor overlap (anchor 4).

3 / 5

Total

15

/

20

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.

Validation — 15 / 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.