CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

sitemap-coverage

Use when applies to content sites, e-commerce stores, and any site where timely indexing of new pages matters. Use when investigating why new pages take a long time to appear in search results.

49

Quality

54%

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-coverage/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

72%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 a well-organized, token-efficient overview that delegates implementation detail to a real, clearly signaled reference file. Its main gap is workflow validation: the Check → Fix sequence lacks an explicit post-fix verification step, which matters because sitemap changes are batch operations.

Suggestions

Add an explicit validation step after Fix, e.g., 'Re-run the Check (or GSC Coverage report) after sitemap regeneration to confirm missing pages are now listed and noindex/redirected URLs are removed.'

Trim the duplicated opening rationale (it repeats the reference's 'Why It Matters') and drop the trailing rule-page URL that duplicates frontmatter metadata.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean, assumes Claude's competence, and avoids tutorializing, but the opening sentence ("Pages absent from the sitemap rely entirely on crawl discovery…") duplicates the reference's 'Why It Matters' section, and the trailing 'Rule page' URL repeats frontmatter metadata. These minor duplications keep it at anchor 4 rather than 5.

4 / 5

Actionability

The Check section gives concrete, criteria-based instruction ("Flag any page that returns HTTP 200, has no `noindex` directive, has a self-referencing canonical, but is absent from the sitemap") and the Fix section is specific, which is executable guidance for an instruction-only skill. It is not 5 because the mechanics of performing the comparison (crawl vs. export, GSC steps) are entirely deferred to the reference.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A clear Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sequence is present, but the body has no post-fix validation checkpoint, and sitemap regeneration is a batch operation — the judging guideline caps batch workflows without explicit validation steps at 3. The only verification mention is indirect ("describe how to verify the final page output"), not a workflow step.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise, well-sectioned overview with a single one-level-deep reference (`references/rule.md`, verified to exist) that is clearly signaled with its purpose ("For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance"). For a sub-50-line skill with no need for additional external files, this matches the anchor for ideal structure.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

36%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 entirely trigger-focused: it says when to use the skill well but never says what the skill does. The most important keyword ('sitemap') is absent, weakening both trigger matching and distinctiveness from adjacent SEO skills.

Suggestions

Add a leading 'what' clause with concrete actions, e.g., 'Audit sitemap coverage by comparing all canonical, indexable URLs against the XML sitemap and flagging missing pages.' before the 'Use when' triggers.

Include the central keyword 'sitemap' (plus synonyms like 'XML sitemap', 'SEO', 'indexed') in the description so users asking about sitemaps naturally match it.

Mention the primary tooling trigger (Google Search Console / Coverage report) to sharpen distinctiveness against sibling crawl- and noindex-related SEO skills.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain ("timely indexing of new pages", "new pages take a long time to appear in search results") but contains no action verbs describing what the skill actually does — there is no 'audit', 'check', or 'flag missing pages'. It matches the anchor for naming the domain with minimal or generic actions; it is not score 1 because the domain is specific rather than pure abstraction.

2 / 5

Completeness

Both sentences are 'Use when…' clauses, so explicit trigger guidance is present, but the 'what' is entirely missing — the description never states what the skill does (cf. the anchor example 'Use when working with documents'). The 'when' is clear and specific, which keeps this from scoring lower, but the absence of any 'what' statement prevents a 3.

2 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Phrases like "content sites", "e-commerce stores", and "why new pages take a long time to appear in search results" are natural user language, but the most central keyword — 'sitemap' — never appears, nor do common synonyms like 'SEO', 'indexed', or 'Google Search Console'. This is some relevant keywords with common variations missing, matching anchor 3 rather than 4.

3 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Timely indexing of new pages" narrows the scope to indexing latency, but without the word 'sitemap' it could plausibly trigger for sibling SEO skills such as noindex rules, robots.txt, or general crawlability checks. It is somewhat specific with residual overlap risk, matching anchor 3.

3 / 5

Total

10

/

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.