CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

unique-id

Use when reviewing templates, rendered HTML, or shared components related to Ensure all IDs are unique. Validate the final browser-facing markup, not just the source framework abstraction.

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/unique-id/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

63%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 well-structured with clean mode sections and exemplary progressive disclosure to a real reference file, but it suffers from token-redundant repetition and lacks any concrete detection method or example in the body itself. The workflow would also benefit from an explicit post-fix re-validation step.

Suggestions

Remove the verbatim duplication of the duplicate-ID consequences (the intro paragraph repeats Quick Reference bullet 4) to reclaim tokens.

Add a concrete detection method to the Check section, e.g. a one-liner to list duplicate IDs (grep/sort/uniq or a small JS snippet) or a short good/bad HTML example.

Add a re-validation step after Fix ('re-scan the rendered markup to confirm no duplicates remain and all references resolve') to close the feedback loop.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is short and mostly lean, but the duplicate-ID consequences are stated twice nearly verbatim (intro paragraph and Quick Reference bullet 4), and the intro re-explains basic HTML facts ('Duplicate IDs break form accessibility... getElementById returns wrong elements') Claude already knows.

3 / 5

Actionability

Per-mode directives include some concrete details ('update any references like labels, ARIA attributes, or JavaScript selectors', 'Flag exact elements, attributes, and routes'), but the Check section gives no detection method or command ('Scan this HTML document' says nothing about how) and the body contains no example, leaving execution details incomplete.

3 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sections are clearly delineated with the Check step serving as validation before fixing, but there is no re-validation after Fix and no feedback loop, matching the 'clear sequence with minor validation gaps' anchor.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The short, well-sectioned body is a genuine overview that defers all code examples and framework-specific guidance to references/rule.md (verified to exist), which is clearly signaled and exactly one level deep — matching the clean split-and-navigate anchor.

5 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

66%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 has an explicit 'Use when' trigger clause and reasonable keyword coverage, but relies on templated phrasing that weakens both its action specificity and its distinctiveness from sibling rule skills. It reads as generated boilerplate rather than a naturally written capability statement.

Suggestions

Rewrite to lead with concrete actions, e.g. 'Detect and fix duplicate ID attributes in rendered HTML, templates, and shared components; update dependent labels, ARIA attributes, and JavaScript selectors.'

Add the natural trigger phrases users actually say, such as 'duplicate IDs', 'ID collisions', or 'getElementById returns the wrong element'.

Differentiate from sibling frontendchecklist skills by replacing the shared 'reviewing templates, rendered HTML, or shared components' boilerplate with ID-specific triggers.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the domain and 1-2 concrete actions ('reviewing templates, rendered HTML, or shared components', 'Validate the final browser-facing markup'), but does not comprehensively enumerate the skill's capabilities (check, fix, explain, review) and the templated 'related to Ensure all IDs are unique' phrasing blurs the action.

3 / 5

Completeness

Both 'what' ('Validate the final browser-facing markup, not just the source framework abstraction') and 'when' (explicit 'Use when reviewing templates, rendered HTML, or shared components...') are present, but the 'what' is a single clause and less explicit than a full capability list, keeping it below the 5 anchor.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage including 'templates', 'rendered HTML', 'shared components', 'unique IDs', and 'browser-facing markup', but it misses the most natural user phrase 'duplicate IDs' and related synonyms like 'ID collision'.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'Use when reviewing templates, rendered HTML, or shared components' clause is boilerplate shared with sibling frontendchecklist rule skills, so only the embedded rule title differentiates it; overlap risk with similar HTML-rule skills remains.

3 / 5

Total

14

/

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.