CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

tabindex

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

60

Quality

70%

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/tabindex/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

65%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.

A lean, well-organized overview with excellent progressive disclosure to a single real reference file. The weaknesses are thin actionability (no inline example markup or detection steps) and an implicit workflow with no explicit verification steps.

Suggestions

Add one small before/after markup snippet (or a concrete detection step like 'Tab through the page and note where focus jumps') to the Check or Fix section so the guidance is executable without opening references/rule.md.

Make the sequence explicit — e.g., number the steps '1. Check for positive tabindex values and unfocusable custom elements → 2. Fix by... → 3. Verify by re-tabbing through the page / checking the browser accessibility tree'.

Merge the redundant Check/Fix/Explain one-liners, which restate the Quick Reference bullets, to tighten the body further.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The ~30-line body is compact and the Quick Reference delivers the core rules in three bullets, but the Check/Fix/Explain sections largely restate those bullets ("positive tabindex values" appears in all three), so a few lines could be trimmed.

4 / 5

Actionability

Concrete attribute values are given ("tabindex=\"0\"", "tabindex=\"-1\"", avoid positive values), but the Check/Fix sections are one-line directives with no example markup or concrete detection steps (e.g., how to walk the tab order or inspect the accessibility tree) — those details are deferred entirely to references/rule.md.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sections imply a rough sequence, but the steps are not explicitly ordered and validation checkpoints are only implicit — the Code Review section says to "note how to verify the fix with browser accessibility tooling" without describing any verification step.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The short body holds the core rules and defers implementation details, code examples, and framework guidance to a single clearly signaled one-level-deep reference (references/rule.md), which exists as a real 51-line file; navigation is easy.

5 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

75%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.

A solid description with an explicit 'Use when...' clause and multiple concrete review actions. Its main weaknesses are missing common trigger synonyms (accessibility, a11y, tab order, keyboard navigation) and an awkwardly grafted rule title inside the 'when' clause.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — "Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output" — which are specific review actions, but coverage has minor gaps (e.g., it never states the core deliverable of flagging/fixing offending elements directly in the description).

4 / 5

Completeness

Both 'what' (check native semantics, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, screen-reader output) and 'when' ("Use when reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns...") are explicitly present, but the 'when' clause is awkwardly phrased ("related to Use appropriate tabindex values") and could name the concrete triggers (tabindex, tab order) more directly.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Natural domain terms are present ("rendered HTML, interactive components, design-system patterns", "keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, screen-reader"), but common user phrasings like "accessibility", "a11y", "tab order", or "keyboard navigation" are missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The tabindex/focus/keyboard-review niche is mostly distinct, but the description overlaps with sibling accessibility skills (focus management, accessible names), since it asks to inspect "accessible names, and screen-reader output where relevant".

4 / 5

Total

16

/

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.