CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

sitemap-4xx

Use when applies to any site with a dynamically generated or manually maintained XML sitemap. Use when investigating crawl errors or after a site migration that removed pages.

54

Quality

61%

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/sitemap-4xx/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

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 content is well-structured, concise, and uses progressive disclosure effectively with a verified one-level reference. Its main gaps are in the Check step's lack of a concrete fetching method/tool and the absence of an explicit post-fix verification loop.

Suggestions

Make the Check step executable by naming a concrete method or tool, e.g. "Fetch every <loc> with curl -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' or a crawler like Screaming Frog, then filter for 4XX."

Add an explicit verification loop after Fix, e.g. "Regenerate and resubmit the sitemap, then re-fetch to confirm no 4XX URLs remain and Search Console Coverage clears."

Surface one tiny code snippet or exact command inline in the body so the core check is copy-paste ready without opening the reference.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean (~40 lines), assumes Claude's competence without explaining what a sitemap or HTTP status code is, and every section (Quick Reference, Check, Fix, Explain, Code Review) earns its place; the Quick Reference is a legitimate summary pattern rather than padding.

3 / 3

Actionability

Guidance names specific status codes and remediation ("set up a 301 redirect", "return 410 Gone", "Cross-reference against Google Search Console → Coverage"), but the Check step ("Fetch all URLs listed in the sitemap and record their HTTP status codes") gives no concrete method or tool, and the body carries no executable command or example (those live only in the reference).

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A clear Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sequence is present, but for a batch operation (fetching all sitemap URLs) and remediation changes there is no explicit post-fix validation or re-check loop; checkpoints are implicit, which caps it at 2 per the batch-operation guidance.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a well-organized overview with clearly signaled one-level-deep navigation ("see references/rule.md"), the referenced file exists and is a single level deep, and content is appropriately split between overview and details.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

12

Passed

Description

50%

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 explicit, double-stated trigger guidance and a clear sitemap/crawl-error domain, but it omits any capability statement (what the skill actually does) and uses slightly awkward trigger phrasing. It is adequate but not exemplary.

Suggestions

Lead with a concrete capability clause, e.g. "Audits XML sitemaps for URLs returning 4XX status codes and guides their removal or redirection."

Replace the awkward "Use when applies to any site with..." with natural user phrasing such as "Use when checking a sitemap for broken/404 URLs or after a migration that deleted pages."

Add discriminating terms ("4XX", "404", "broken URLs", "Search Console") to improve trigger quality and reduce overlap with generic crawl-error skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names a concrete domain ("dynamically generated or manually maintained XML sitemap", "crawl errors", "site migration that removed pages") but never states a concrete action the skill performs; it is specific in context yet action-less, so it sits above the vague anchor but below the multi-action anchor.

2 / 3

Completeness

The "when" is explicit and strong (two "Use when..." clauses), but the "what does this do" capability is never stated; per the guideline not to infer capabilities, the missing what keeps it from a 3 even though the when is well covered.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It includes relevant natural terms ("sitemap", "crawl errors", "site migration") but the phrasing "Use when applies to any site with..." is awkward rather than natural, and common variations a user might say ("404", "broken URLs/links", "Search Console errors") are missing.

2 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The sitemap-focused niche is fairly specific, but "investigating crawl errors" is broad and could overlap with other SEO/crawl skills, and the absence of discriminating terms like "4XX" or "broken URLs" leaves some overlap risk.

2 / 3

Total

8

/

12

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.

Validation15 / 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.