CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

performance-resource-hints

Use when auditing slow page loads, heavy assets, or rendering delays related to Use resource hints for faster loading. Verify the actual bottleneck in DevTools, Lighthouse, or field data before recommending changes.

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/performance-resource-hints/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

78%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 lean, well-structured overview: a useful hint-to-use-case mapping, an ordered audit workflow with verification checkpoints, and a clean single pointer to references/rule.md for implementation detail. Its main gaps are the absence of even one copy-paste snippet in the body itself and slight templated redundancy across the Check/Fix/Code Review sections.

Suggestions

Include one minimal copy-paste example inline (e.g., a preload link tag for a hero image and a preconnect for a CDN origin) so the body is actionable even before opening the reference file.

Tighten the Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections — they overlap (Check and Fix both describe analyzing and adding hints) and the Code Review sentence re-embeds the rule title mid-phrase.

Make the verification checkpoint explicit in the workflow: state up front in the body (as the description does) that the bottleneck must be confirmed in DevTools, Lighthouse, or field data before any hints are recommended.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~35-line body is lean: a one-line value statement, a four-bullet Quick Reference mapping each hint type to its use case, and short imperative sections that assume Claude's knowledge. Minor trimming is possible — the "Check"/"Fix" sections partially restate each other and the Code Review sentence awkwardly repeats the rule title ("loading behavior that affect Use resource hints for faster loading") — so it fits 'Efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' rather than the flawless anchor 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

The Quick Reference gives concrete, per-hint guidance ("Use preload for critical above-the-fold resources (fonts, hero images)", "Use preconnect for third-party origins (CDNs, APIs, analytics)") and the Fix section names the exact hint types. However, the body itself contains no executable code or commands — all examples are deferred to references/rule.md — so it matches 'Mostly executable guidance; concrete code or commands with minor gaps' rather than anchor 5's copy-paste-ready examples.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sections form a clear sequence, and validation is present ("verify critical resources use preload/preconnect", "describe the measurement method used to confirm the issue", and the description's mandate to verify the bottleneck before recommending changes). It is not an explicit numbered multi-step workflow with re-check loops, so it matches 'Clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps' rather than anchor 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview with a single, clearly signaled one-level-deep pointer — "For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see references/rule.md" — and that file exists with the implementation content (160 lines including HTML examples). Content is appropriately split between overview and detail with easy navigation, matching 'Clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references; content appropriately split'.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

70%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 and a concrete verification action with named tools, but it mechanically embeds the rule title ("related to Use resource hints for faster loading") instead of stating the skill's actual capabilities. Rewriting it as a third-person capability statement that enumerates the specific hint types would sharpen both the what and distinctiveness.

Suggestions

Rewrite the embedded title as a capability statement, e.g. "Audits pages for missing or misused resource hints (preload, preconnect, prefetch, dns-prefetch) and recommends fixes. Use when auditing slow page loads, heavy assets, or rendering delays..."

Add common user synonyms and metric names ("page speed", "LCP", "Core Web Vitals") to the trigger clause to improve keyword coverage.

Make the 'what' explicit up front rather than implied mid-sentence — lead with the actions the skill performs (audit hint usage, add hints, verify in DevTools/Lighthouse) before the 'Use when' clause.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ("auditing slow page loads, heavy assets, or rendering delays") and one or two concrete actions ("Verify the actual bottleneck in DevTools, Lighthouse, or field data before recommending changes"), but the core actions the skill actually performs — applying preload, preconnect, prefetch, or dns-prefetch hints — are never enumerated. This matches the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive', not 4, because it does not list several specific actions.

3 / 5

Completeness

An explicit 'when' is present ("Use when auditing slow page loads, heavy assets, or rendering delays...") and a 'what' is present but only via the awkwardly embedded rule title "related to Use resource hints for faster loading" plus the verification action. Both exist yet the 'what' is muddled and imprecise, matching anchor 4 ('Has both what and when; when could be more explicit or specific') rather than 5, which requires a clearly stated what with concrete trigger phrases.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrases like "slow page loads", "heavy assets", "rendering delays", plus tool names "DevTools", "Lighthouse", and "field data" give good keyword coverage. A few natural synonyms are missing (e.g., "page speed", "Core Web Vitals", "LCP", "preload"), so it fits 'Good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' rather than the comprehensive anchor 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The resource-hints niche is fairly distinct ("related to Use resource hints for faster loading", "Verify the actual bottleneck in DevTools, Lighthouse"), but the broad opening triggers ("slow page loads, heavy assets, rendering delays") overlap with sibling performance-audit skills like image optimization or lazy loading. This fits 'Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills' rather than 5's 'clear niche with distinct triggers'.

4 / 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.