right-to-erasure

Use when auditing account settings pages, privacy dashboards, or API routes to verify that a complete data deletion path exists for users.

Quality

66%

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/right-to-erasure/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

57%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is well-structured with a clean single-level reference and a useful quick-reference list, but it carries unnecessary regulatory padding, lacks executable code, and omits validation checkpoints for a destructive operation.

Suggestions

Trim the intro paragraph to the rule and its trigger, dropping the fine amounts and trust commentary that Claude already understands.

Add an explicit verification checkpoint to the deletion workflow, e.g. confirm the server response succeeded and re-check that client-side storage is cleared before showing success.

Inline a minimal executable deletion snippet (clear-storage + fetch to the delete endpoint) so the body is actionable without forcing a jump to the reference.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The Quick Reference and Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections are lean, but the intro paragraph pads in regulatory fine amounts ("up to €20 million or 4% of global annual turnover") and trust-building commentary Claude does not need, matching the level-2 "could be tightened" anchor rather than the fully lean level-3.	2 / 3
Actionability	Guidance names concrete specifics ("localStorage, sessionStorage, IndexedDB, and cookies", "within 30 days") but the body provides no executable code or commands, delegating all implementation to the reference; this is partially actionable rather than copy-paste ready, so it sits at level 2.	2 / 3
Workflow Clarity	The Quick Reference lists sequenced steps, but for a destructive deletion operation there is no explicit validation or verification checkpoint (e.g. confirm server deletion succeeded, verify storage cleared), which the rubric caps at level 2 for destructive workflows.	2 / 3
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a concise overview with well-organized sections and a single, clearly signaled one-level-deep reference ("see `references/rule.md`") that exists on disk, matching the level-3 anchor for a short, well-structured skill.	3 / 3
	Total	9 / 12 Passed

Description

75%

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 an explicit trigger and a clear, well-scoped niche, scoring well on completeness and distinctiveness. It is held back by a single-action framing and partial coverage of natural trigger terms.

Suggestions

Broaden trigger terms to include phrasings users actually say, e.g. "delete my account", "right to be forgotten", or "GDPR erasure".

Reframe as multiple concrete actions (e.g. "audit, verify, and flag gaps in user data-deletion paths") to lift specificity from one action to several.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the privacy/deletion domain and concrete audit targets ("account settings pages, privacy dashboards, or API routes") but describes a single verification action rather than multiple distinct concrete actions, matching the level-2 anchor rather than the multi-action level-3 example.	2 / 3
Completeness	An explicit "Use when auditing ... to verify that a complete data deletion path exists" clause answers both what (verify a complete deletion path exists) and when (auditing settings/privacy/API surfaces), matching the level-3 anchor; it is not level 2 because the trigger is explicit rather than implied.	3 / 3
Trigger Term Quality	Includes relevant terms a user might say ("account settings", "privacy dashboards", "data deletion") but omits common variations like "delete my account", "right to be forgotten", or "GDPR", so coverage is partial rather than comprehensive.	2 / 3
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The trigger is scoped to a narrow niche (verifying user data-deletion paths on settings/privacy/API surfaces), making it unlikely to fire for unrelated skills; it is clearly above level 2 because the targets are specific rather than generic.	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/right-to-erasure/SKILL.md
Commit: 48405aa

Reviewed: about 7 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.