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.

53

Quality

60%

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

50%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 is well-structured for progressive disclosure — a lean overview pointing cleanly to one reference file — but the body itself is short on executable guidance and lacks a re-verification checkpoint in its Check/Fix flow.

Suggestions

Add a concrete detection method or snippet inline (e.g. a grep/JS one-liner to list repeated id= values) so the Check step is executable without opening the reference.

Insert an explicit re-verify step after Fix ("Re-scan the document to confirm every ID is now unique") to close the validation gap.

Remove the redundant fourth Quick Reference bullet that restates the opening sentence, or fold the opening rationale into Quick Reference to avoid repetition.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

Mostly efficient and short, but the opening line and the fourth Quick Reference bullet both state "Duplicate IDs break form labels, ARIA, and getElementById", and the Explain/Code Review sections are meta-directives about what to do rather than substance, so it could be tightened.

3 / 5

Actionability

The body gives only high-level hints ("Scan this HTML document to ensure all ID attributes are unique", "Remove duplicate ID values... and update any references") with no concrete scanning method, commands, or code, deferring all executable detail to references/rule.md.

2 / 5

Workflow Clarity

A rough Check → Fix sequence is present, but there is no explicit re-verification checkpoint after fixing (e.g. re-scan to confirm no duplicates remain), and Explain/Code Review read as parallel modes rather than a sequenced workflow.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview with a single well-signaled one-level-deep reference ("see `references/rule.md`"), and references/rule.md exists and holds the detailed code examples, matching the clear-overview anchor.

5 / 5

Total

13

/

20

Passed

Description

70%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 answers both what and when with a usable "Use when" clause and reasonable natural trigger terms, but the awkward "related to Ensure all IDs are unique" construction reads like a rule-title placeholder and slightly muddies the triggers.

Suggestions

Reword the trigger so the unique-ID task is expressed in natural user language, e.g. "Use when checking rendered HTML or shared components for duplicate IDs."

Add common synonyms a user would actually say ("duplicate IDs", "ID collisions", "unique IDs") to strengthen trigger term coverage.

Lead with the concrete action (validate rendered markup for unique IDs) before listing the artifact types it applies to.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain and two concrete actions — "reviewing templates, rendered HTML, or shared components" and "Validate the final browser-facing markup" — but coverage is not comprehensive, matching the 1-2 concrete actions anchor.

3 / 5

Completeness

Both what (review/validate markup for unique IDs) and when (explicit "Use when reviewing templates, rendered HTML, or shared components") are present, but the "related to Ensure all IDs are unique" phrasing reads as a templated insertion making the trigger slightly less crisp than a 5.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage ("templates", "rendered HTML", "shared components", "browser-facing markup") that a frontend reviewer would say, though common variations like "duplicate IDs" or "ID collisions" are absent.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The unique-ID niche is mostly distinct, but the broad "reviewing templates, rendered HTML, or shared components" framing carries minor overlap risk with closely related general HTML/frontend review skills.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

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.

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.