CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

sitemap-valid

Use when applies to any site with a manually or programmatically generated XML sitemap. Use when debugging sitemap submission errors in Google Search Console.

56

Quality

64%

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

Quality

Content

57%

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is well-structured with a clean overview and a properly signaled single reference, scoring well on progressive disclosure. Its weaknesses are token redundancy between Quick Reference and Check, the absence of any executable command in the body, and a missing re-validation checkpoint in the Fix workflow.

Suggestions

De-duplicate Quick Reference and Check: keep Quick Reference as the spec list and make Check a concrete validation procedure (e.g. `xmllint --noout sitemap.xml`) instead of restating the limits.

Add at least one executable command to the body (such as the xmllint invocation or a validator URL) rather than deferring all tooling to the reference.

Insert an explicit re-validation step in Fix before "Resubmit to Google Search Console" to form a validate→fix→re-validate→resubmit feedback loop.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly lean with bullet points and no tutorial padding, but the "Check" section restates the Quick Reference limits and namespace in prose (e.g. 50,000 URLs / 50 MB and the xmlns value appear twice). It is above 1 because there is no concept over-explanation, but below 3 due to this redundancy.

2 / 3

Actionability

Concrete specifics are present (exact namespace URL, 50,000-URL/50-MB limits, encoding table), but the body gives no executable command or code — "validate it against the sitemaps.org schema" and "re-generate using a validated sitemap library" are procedural without the how, deferred to the reference. It is not 1 because real specifics exist, and not 3 because nothing in the body is copy-paste executable.

2 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A Check→Fix sequence is present (check the sitemap, then re-generate/encode/split/resubmit), but there is no explicit re-validation checkpoint before resubmitting. Per the scoring notes, missing validation feedback in batch/XML operations caps this at 2; it is above 1 because steps are listed and ordered.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise, well-sectioned overview (Quick Reference, Check, Fix, Explain, Code Review) that points to one clearly-signaled, one-level-deep real file ("see references/rule.md"), and rule.md is self-contained with no nested references. It matches the clear-overview-with-one-level-reference anchor rather than the score 2 inline-bloat or score 1 nested-reference patterns.

3 / 3

Total

9

/

12

Passed

Description

72%

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 strong, natural trigger terms and a distinct niche, but is weakened by an awkward "Use when applies to..." construction and a missing explicit statement of the skill's core action (validating sitemaps). Adding a concrete lead verb would lift both specificity and completeness.

Suggestions

Lead with the core action, e.g. "Validate XML sitemaps against the sitemaps.org schema, check URL and file-size limits, and verify XML encoding." so "what it does" is explicit.

Fix the grammar of the first clause: replace "Use when applies to any site with..." with "Use when a site has a manually or programmatically generated XML sitemap."

Keep the two trigger scenarios but ensure the opening sentence states the action before the "Use when" triggers.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ("XML sitemap", "Google Search Console") and a partial action ("debugging sitemap submission errors"), but never states the core concrete action (validate) and is not comprehensive. It is above score 1 because an action is named, but below 3 because multiple specific actions are not listed.

2 / 3

Completeness

Explicit "when" guidance is present via two "Use when..." clauses, but the "what it does" is only implied ("applies to any site with...XML sitemap", "debugging") and never states the validation action. It is not 3 because "what" is not clearly answered, and not 1 because "when" is explicit and strong.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural terms a user would actually say — "XML sitemap", "sitemap submission errors", and "Google Search Console" — giving good coverage of the domain's common phrasings. It is not score 2 because the key terms are well covered rather than missing common variations.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Targets a clear SEO niche (XML sitemaps, Google Search Console submission errors) with distinct triggers unlikely to overlap with other skills. It is above 2 because the triggers are specific rather than broadly overlapping.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

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.