select-name

Use when reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns related to Provide accessible names for select elements. Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output where relevant.

Quality

76%

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/select-name/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

68%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 concise and points cleanly to a real one-level reference file for full details. Its weakest area is workflow clarity — the review process is implied rather than explicitly sequenced with validation checkpoints.

Suggestions

Add a short numbered review workflow (e.g., 1. inspect rendered markup → 2. check accessible name in the a11y tree → 3. verify keyboard/focus → 4. confirm with a screen reader) with an explicit validation checkpoint before declaring the rule satisfied.

Inline one minimal `<label for>`/`aria-label` code snippet in the Fix section so the body is self-contained for the common case, keeping the fuller examples in references/rule.md.

Convert the `references/rule.md` pointer into a markdown link and tighten or remove the templated "Explain" directive to reduce padding.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and avoids explaining basics Claude already knows, but the templated "Explain" and "Code Review" sections are thin directives that could be trimmed or merged; fits the "efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed" anchor rather than a 5.	4 / 5
Actionability	Gives concrete, specific guidance ("Use the `<label>` element with a matching `for` attribute", "use `aria-label` or `aria-labelledby`") that is actionable for an instruction-only skill; not a 5 because no inline executable code example is provided in the body itself.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The Check/Fix/Explain sections imply a loose review sequence but there are no explicit numbered steps or validation checkpoints; matches the "steps listed but validation gaps; checkpoints implicit" anchor, and the simple-skill exception does not lift it above 3 without explicit checkpoints.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	Clear section structure with a single well-signaled one-level reference ("see `references/rule.md`", verified to exist); not a 5 because the reference is given as a plain code path rather than a navigable link and the section templates are slightly generic.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 20 Passed

Description

83%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 well-constructed with an explicit Use-when trigger and a list of concrete inspection actions, clearly answering both what and when. Its main weakness is a broad opening framing that could cause overlap with related accessibility skills.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists several concrete inspection actions — "Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output" — matching the "several specific actions; minor gaps" anchor; not a 5 because coverage of how to remediate is left to the body.	4 / 5
Completeness	Explicitly answers both — the "Use when reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns..." clause gives the when, and the subsequent inspection actions give the concrete what; matches the anchor requiring both with concrete trigger phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural terms a user would say ("rendered HTML", "interactive components", "accessible names", "screen-reader output", "select elements"); not a 5 because common synonyms/extensions like "dropdown", "a11y", or "WCAG" are absent.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The select-element accessible-name niche is distinct, but the broad "reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns" framing risks overlap with sibling accessibility review skills; not a 5 due to that residual overlap.	4 / 5
	Total	17 / 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/select-name/SKILL.md
Commit: 30756a7

Reviewed: 9 days 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.