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.

Quality

58%

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/sitemap-coverage/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

61%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 skill body is a concise, well-structured overview that appropriately defers detail to a real references/rule.md file. Its main weakness is actionability and workflow_clarity: executable code and validation steps live only in the reference rather than being surfaced inline.

Suggestions

Include one small inline code snippet or concrete command in the Check or Fix section (e.g. a sample sitemap.xml <url> entry) so the body is actionable without opening the reference.

Add an explicit verification checkpoint in the body (e.g. 'Confirm via Google Search Console Coverage report that flagged pages now appear in the sitemap') rather than deferring all validation to the reference.

Use a labeled reference link (e.g. '**Full guide**: see `references/rule.md`') to make the progressive-disclosure pointer more prominent.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — short Quick Reference bullets and terse Check/Fix/Explain sections with no padding or explanation of basic concepts; the only mild over-explanation is the opening sentence restating crawl discovery, keeping it just below 5.	4 / 5
Actionability	The Check and Fix sections give concrete criteria (HTTP 200, no noindex, self-referencing canonical) but no executable commands or code in the body — the actual code examples live only in the reference file, so guidance is actionable in principle but not copy-paste ready in the body.	3 / 5
Workflow Clarity	The Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections give a rough sequence, but there is no explicit validation checkpoint in the body itself (verification lives in the reference file); since this is a review/audit task rather than a destructive batch operation, the destructive-cap does not apply, but missing inline validation keeps it at 3.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The body is a well-organized overview (Quick Reference, Check, Fix, Explain, Code Review) with a clearly signaled one-level-deep pointer to references/rule.md, which is a real file; it is not a 5 because the navigation is a single trailing pointer rather than multiple labeled reference links.	4 / 5
	Total	14 / 20 Passed

Description

56%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 provides strong, natural trigger guidance ('when') but completely omits what the skill does (the 'what'), which caps completeness and specificity. It is clearly niche-scoped to sitemap/indexing concerns with low conflict risk.

Suggestions

Add a concrete action statement before the 'Use when' clauses, e.g. 'Audits XML sitemap coverage and flags canonical indexable pages missing from the sitemap.'

Add the keyword 'sitemap' and 'crawl discovery' to the trigger phrases to improve natural term coverage.

Lead with the 'what' then the 'when' so the description answers both questions explicitly.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	The description names the domain (content sites, e-commerce, indexing) but gives no concrete actions — it never states what the skill does (e.g., 'audits sitemap coverage', 'flags missing pages'), only when to invoke it. This matches the 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic' anchor and is below the score-3 anchor which requires 1-2 concrete actions.	2 / 5
Completeness	It has a clear and repeated 'when' ('Use when...') but the 'what' is entirely missing — the description never states what action the skill performs, so it matches the 'clear what but when missing' anchor inverted; the missing-what caps completeness at 3 per the boundary guidance.	3 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	It uses natural user-facing phrases ('why new pages take a long time to appear in search results', 'content sites', 'e-commerce stores') that a user might actually say, with good keyword coverage; it lacks common synonyms like 'sitemap', 'crawl', or 'indexing delays' that would push it to 5.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The indexing/sitemap-coverage niche is fairly specific and distinct from other SEO skills, with minor overlap risk with adjacent crawl/indexing rules; the lack of an explicit action statement keeps it just below a 5.	4 / 5
	Total	13 / 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/sitemap-coverage/SKILL.md
Commit: 30756a7

Reviewed: 13 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.