redirect-chain

Use when auditing site redirects after URL migrations, domain changes, or CMS upgrades. Applies to any site that has had multiple rounds of structural changes over time.

Quality

56%

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/redirect-chain/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

56%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 has a clean structure with excellent progressive disclosure to a real one-level-deep reference, and the fix/verify workflow includes an explicit validation checkpoint. Its weaknesses are noticeable redundancy across the Check/Code Review/Explain/Quick Reference sections and detection guidance that stays abstract in the body.

Suggestions

Merge the near-duplicate "Check" and "Code Review" sections into one audit procedure, and drop the "Explain" section since the intro and Quick Reference already cover why chains matter.

Move the concrete detection mechanics (e.g., the curl hop-tracing command from references/rule.md) into the Check section so the body's audit step is executable rather than "follow all redirect rules".

Add a short error-recovery note to the Fix workflow (e.g., re-run the hop trace if the flattened redirect still resolves through an intermediate URL).

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The "Explain" section restates the intro ("Googlebot follows redirect chains up to a certain number of hops... then stops... loses a portion of the PageRank"), "Code Review" nearly duplicates "Check" ("follow all redirect rules... record the full chain... number of hops... HTTP status at each step"), and "Quick Reference" repeats all of it. That is several padded/duplicated sections, matching anchor 2; the content could be roughly half its length.	2 / 5
Actionability	The Fix section is concrete ("if A→B→C, update A's redirect to point directly to C... confirming a single 301 or 302 followed by a 200") and the report format is specified, but the detection instruction "Follow all redirect rules configured on the site" is abstract with no commands or method in the body. Anchor 4 requires concrete code or commands, which only exist in the referenced file.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	There is a clear Check → Fix → Verify sequence with an explicit validation checkpoint ("Verify the chain is gone by following the URL and confirming a single 301 or 302 followed by a 200") plus loop-checking and final-200 verification, so the batch-operation cap does not apply. Not anchor 5 because there is no error-recovery feedback loop and no method for enumerating the site's redirect rules.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a short, well-sectioned overview that correctly delegates implementation details (curl commands, tooling) to a single clearly signaled reference: "For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see references/rule.md". The reference file exists and is one level deep with no nested bundle references.	5 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Description

56%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 strong, explicit trigger guidance and a clear niche, but it never states what the skill actually does beyond a generic "auditing" action. Adding 1-2 concrete capabilities (e.g., detect multi-hop chains, report hops and status codes, flatten to a single 301) would lift both specificity and completeness.

Suggestions

State the skill's concrete actions in third person, e.g., "Detects multi-hop redirect chains, reports the full chain with HTTP status at each hop, and recommends flattening each chain to a single 301."

Add the core natural trigger terms users would say: "redirect chains", "301 redirects", and "redirect loops" alongside the existing migration triggers.

Keep the explicit "Use when..." clause but pair it with an explicit what-clause so both halves of completeness are concrete.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The only action stated is "auditing site redirects", which is generic — the description never says what the audit does (detect chains, report hops, flatten redirects). This matches the anchor "Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic"; anchor 3 would require 1-2 concrete stated actions.	2 / 5
Completeness	The "when" is explicit and rich ("Use when auditing site redirects after URL migrations, domain changes, or CMS upgrades"), but the "what" is only the implied gerund "auditing" — the skill's concrete outputs are never stated. It is the mirror of anchor 4 (which has a clear what with a weak when), so it does not clearly fit anchor 4.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	"site redirects", "URL migrations", "domain changes", and "CMS upgrades" are natural phrases users would say when needing this skill. Not anchor 5 because the most distinctive natural terms — "redirect chain", "301", "redirect loop" — are missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The redirect-audit niche with migration/domain-change/CMS-upgrade triggers is mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against generic site-audit or migration skills. Not anchor 5 because "URL migrations" and "structural changes" could also trigger a broader migration-focused skill.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 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/redirect-chain/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.