w3c-compliant

Use when reviewing templates, rendered HTML, or shared components related to Validate HTML against W3C standards. Validate the final browser-facing markup, not just the source framework abstraction.

Quality

54%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Fix and improve this skill with Tessl

tessl review fix ./skills/w3c-compliant/SKILL.md

Quality

Content

38%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 and correctly defers detail to a single one-level reference file, but it is held back by redundant Check/Fix/Explain sections, an unnecessary 'Explain' section, and a lack of executable commands or code in the body itself.

Suggestions

Collapse the redundant Check/Fix/Explain sections into a single concise workflow and remove the 'Explain' section, which instructs Claude to restate basic knowledge.

Add at least one executable example in the body (e.g., an `npx html-validate` command or a validator.w3.org URL pattern) so the skill is actionable without opening the reference.

Make the validation feedback loop explicit: validate -> fix errors then warnings -> re-validate until clean, as an explicit checkpointed sequence.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The intro explains why HTML validation matters (knowledge Claude already has), the Check/Fix/Explain sections redundantly restate the same validate-and-fix guidance, and the 'Explain' section is pure padding instructing Claude to explain basic concepts.	2 / 5
Actionability	The body names tools (validator.w3.org, html-validate) and defers to references/rule.md, but provides only high-level hints ('Run HTML through W3C validator and fix reported errors') with no executable code or CLI commands in the body itself.	2 / 5
Workflow Clarity	A rough sequence is implied (Check then Fix, 'Fix errors first, then warnings') but there is no explicit validation feedback loop (validate -> fix -> re-validate) and checkpoints are only implicit.	3 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	A clean sectioned overview with a clearly signaled one-level-deep pointer to references/rule.md (verified present) for code examples and framework guidance; minor organization gaps from the redundant inline Check/Fix/Explain sections.	4 / 5
	Total	11 / 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 explicitly covers both what the skill does and when to use it with reasonably natural trigger terms and a clear niche. It is held back by somewhat generic actions, an awkward embedded-title phrasing, and a thin single-action 'what' statement.

Suggestions

Reword 'related to Validate HTML against W3C standards' into a natural clause so the description reads as prose rather than embedding the rule title.

Add one or two more concrete actions (e.g., 'flag unclosed tags, invalid nesting, and missing attributes') to lift specificity from generic review/validate verbs.

Include common user synonyms or file cues (e.g., 'HTML validation', 'markup errors', '.html templates') to broaden trigger coverage.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Names the domain (W3C HTML validation) and two concrete actions ('reviewing templates, rendered HTML, or shared components', 'Validate the final browser-facing markup'), but the actions are generic and not comprehensive.	3 / 5
Completeness	Both 'what' ('Validate the final browser-facing markup') and 'when' ('Use when reviewing templates, rendered HTML, or shared components') are explicit, but the 'what' is a single action and the embedded title phrasing is awkward.	4 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	Includes natural terms users would say ('templates', 'rendered HTML', 'shared components', 'Validate HTML', 'W3C standards') with good coverage, though a few common variations are missing.	4 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The W3C-validation-of-rendered-markup niche is mostly distinct with concrete triggers, with only minor overlap risk against general HTML or code-review skills.	4 / 5
	Total	15 / 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/w3c-compliant/SKILL.md
Commit: 30756a7

Reviewed: 4 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.