CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

schema-noindex-conflict

Use when applies to any site that uses structured data for rich results. Use when investigating why valid schema markup does not produce rich results in Google Search.

55

Quality

63%

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/schema-noindex-conflict/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 content is a well-structured, efficient overview for a single-purpose audit rule: concrete checks and fixes, clear sequencing, and proper delegation of detail to an existing one-level-deep reference. Remaining weaknesses are minor — slight duplication between the intro and Quick Reference, and verification guidance that names the step but not the method.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean, assumes Claude's competence, and pads nothing — no explanations of what structured data or noindex are. The Quick Reference bullets ('Rich result schema... has no effect', 'A page with noindex will not earn rich results') partially duplicate the intro sentence and the Check section, keeping it at anchor 4 rather than 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

The Check section gives concrete, executable checks ('<script type=application/ld+json>' blocks, robots.txt block, 'noindex' in meta robots, canonical pointing elsewhere) and Fix gives specific remediation with a branch for pages that must stay noindexed. Minor gaps: no concrete method for finding schema pages across a large site (e.g., a crawl or grep command), and the executable HTML example lives only in the reference file — anchor 4.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sequence is clear, the Fix section branches on intent (rich results desired vs. page must remain noindexed), and the Check list functions as an explicit audit checkpoint. Verification is mentioned ('describe how to verify the final page output') but no concrete verification method (e.g., Rich Results Test, URL Inspection) is given — anchor 4 with minor validation gaps, not 5.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview that appropriately delegates implementation details, code examples, and framework guidance to a clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference ('see references/rule.md'), which exists as a real 120-line file with the detailed rule and an HTML code example. This matches anchor 5: clear overview, well-signaled one-level-deep references, easy navigation.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Description

47%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 is a trigger-only statement: it says when to use the skill reasonably well but never says what the skill does, which hurts both completeness and specificity. The niche is well-targeted, yet the opening clause is overly broad and the core conflict keyword 'noindex' is absent.

Suggestions

Add an explicit 'what' capability statement, e.g. 'Detects and fixes pages where valid rich-result schema markup is neutralized by noindex directives, robots.txt blocks, or mismatched canonical tags.'

Include the core conflict term 'noindex' (and synonyms like 'rich snippets' or 'JSON-LD') so users describing the symptom with those words trigger the skill.

Narrow the first trigger clause — 'applies to any site that uses structured data for rich results' is broad enough to conflict with general schema-validation skills; scope it to the conflict investigation use case.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ("structured data for rich results", "schema markup") but contains no capability statements — both sentences are 'Use when' trigger clauses with at most the generic action 'investigating'. It matches anchor 2 (domain named, actions minimal/generic), not anchor 3, which requires 1-2 explicit concrete actions.

2 / 5

Completeness

Only 'when' guidance is present (two 'Use when...' clauses) with no 'what' — the skill's actual capability (detecting/fixing schema + noindex conflicts) is never stated. This exactly matches anchor 2: "only 'when' is present without 'what".

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms like "structured data", "rich results", "schema markup", and "Google Search" give good keyword coverage with useful synonyms, but common variations such as 'noindex', 'rich snippets', 'JSON-LD', and 'SERP features' are missing — anchor 4 rather than 5.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (rich result schema failing in Google Search) is distinct with specific triggers, but the first clause — "applies to any site that uses structured data for rich results" — is broad enough to also fire for general schema validation or indexing tasks, giving minor overlap risk with closely related SEO skills (anchor 4, not 5).

4 / 5

Total

12

/

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.