review

Use when applies to product pages, local business pages, recipes, apps, books, and any page that aggregates user reviews. Use when auditing rich result eligibility for e-commerce or review sites.

Quality

72%

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/review/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

72%

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, token-efficient overview with excellent progressive disclosure into references/rule.md. Its weaknesses are an implicit workflow without explicit feedback loops and actionability that leans on the reference for executable code rather than providing a copy-paste example inline.

Suggestions

Add a short numbered Check → Fix → Validate sequence with an explicit 'if validation fails, fix and re-test' feedback loop.

Include one minimal copy-paste JSON-LD AggregateRating example inline so the Fix step is executable without opening the reference.

Make the validation checkpoint a distinct, emphasized step rather than a trailing mention in Quick Reference and Check.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean (~30 lines), assumes Claude's competence, and avoids padding with concepts Claude already knows; every section earns its place, matching the anchor-3 'lean and efficient' example.	3 / 3
Actionability	The Check section names concrete detection strings and required properties and points to Google's Rich Results Test, and the Fix describes a JSON-LD structure, but the body itself contains no executable/code example — it defers those to the reference — so it lands at 'some concrete guidance but incomplete' rather than copy-paste ready.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sections imply a sequence and validation is mentioned ('Run the URL through Google's Rich Results Test', 'before deploying'), but there is no numbered step sequence or explicit validate→fix→revalidate feedback loop, so checkpoints are implicit.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a concise overview that clearly signals a one-level-deep reference ('see references/rule.md' for full implementation details, code examples), and that file exists and holds the detailed content, matching the anchor-3 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references'.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 Passed

Description

72%

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 trigger-term coverage and a clear, distinct niche, but it is trigger-heavy: it tells Claude when to use the skill without clearly stating what the skill does. Adding a leading action clause would round out completeness and specificity.

Suggestions

Lead with a concrete action statement, e.g. 'Adds and validates Review and AggregateRating schema markup...', before the 'Use when' triggers.

Name a second concrete action (validation/auditing) explicitly so specificity reaches the multiple-actions anchor.

Tighten the grammatically awkward 'Use when applies to' into a clean third-person trigger clause.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description lists concrete domains ('product pages, local business pages, recipes, apps, books') and one action ('auditing rich result eligibility'), but the leading 'Use when applies to' lacks a clear action verb and does not enumerate multiple concrete actions, so it stops short of the anchor-3 'multiple specific concrete actions'.	2 / 3
Completeness	The 'when' is explicit via two 'Use when' clauses, but the 'what' is only implied — there is no statement of what the skill does (e.g., add/validate Review schema), so one of the two required answers is missing and the score caps at 2.	2 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Natural terms users would say are well covered — 'user reviews', 'product pages', 'recipes', 'apps', 'books', 'e-commerce', and 'review sites' — matching the anchor-3 'good coverage of natural terms users would say'.	3 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The niche is clearly scoped to review/aggregated-rating schema and rich-result eligibility for review-bearing pages, with distinct triggers unlikely to fire for unrelated skills.	3 / 3
	Total	10 / 12 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/review/SKILL.md
Commit: 48405aa

Reviewed: about 8 hours 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.