CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

ymyl-detection

Use when applies to any site in health, medicine, finance, law, safety, news, or similar fields. Use when auditing content quality for sites in YMYL categories or investigating why high-quality-seeming content underperforms.

61

Quality

72%

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/ymyl-detection/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Quality

Content

72%

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

The body is a well-organized, actionable overview that correctly offloads detail to one real reference file. Its main weaknesses are redundant Quick Reference bullets and a missing explicit verification step in the workflow itself.

Suggestions

Collapse or remove the 'Quick Reference' bullets whose content is already covered verbatim in 'Check' and 'Fix' to remove redundancy.

Add a short verification checkpoint to the body (e.g., 'Verify: confirm each flagged YMYL page now shows author credentials, citations, and a last-reviewed date') rather than relegating all verification to references/rule.md.

Consider one concrete in-body example (e.g., a minimal reviewed-by footer snippet) so the Fix steps are immediately usable without opening the reference.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is compact, but the 'Quick Reference' bullets restate the same points later made concrete in 'Check' and 'Fix' (author credentials, citations, reviewed-by), so it could be tightened. Not a 3 because of that redundancy; not a 1 because it avoids explaining basic concepts Claude already knows.

2 / 3

Actionability

The 'Fix' section gives specific, actionable steps ('Add author bylines with credentials', 'Link author names to bio pages', 'Add citations to primary sources', 'Add a reviewed-by note', 'Add a visible last-reviewed date'), and the 'Check' section lists concrete audit questions. As an instruction-only skill this copy-ready guidance earns the top score.

3 / 3

Workflow Clarity

A Check→Fix→Explain→Code Review sequence is present, but there is no explicit validation or verification checkpoint in the body itself (verification lives only in references/rule.md). Not a 3 because explicit validation steps are absent; not a 1 because the audit sequence is clearly ordered.

2 / 3

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a lean overview (Quick Reference, Check, Fix, Explain, Code Review) with a single, clearly signaled one-level-deep pointer to references/rule.md, which exists and holds the implementation details. Not a 2 because the reference is well-signaled and content is appropriately split rather than inlined.

3 / 3

Total

10

/

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, explicit trigger coverage and a distinct YMYL niche, but it is entirely 'when' guidance with no explicit statement of what the skill does. Adding a concrete capability clause (e.g., 'Identify and flag YMYL pages...') would lift completeness and specificity.

Suggestions

Lead with a concrete 'what' clause before the triggers, e.g. 'Identify and flag YMYL pages on a site and audit them against E-E-A-T standards.'

Replace abstract verbs ('auditing', 'investigating') with specific actions like 'check author credentials, citations, and review dates' to raise specificity.

Keep the strong 'Use when...' triggers but ensure one sentence states the skill's output (a list of flagged YMYL pages with missing trust signals).

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

It names the domain ('health, medicine, finance, law, safety, news') and the actions 'auditing content quality' and 'investigating...underperforms', but these are abstract verbs rather than a list of multiple concrete actions, so it stops at 'names domain and some actions, not comprehensive'.

2 / 3

Completeness

Two explicit 'Use when...' clauses answer 'when' clearly, but the description never states 'what' the skill does (no verb like 'Identifies/Flags/Audits YMYL pages'), leaving the capability only implied. Not a 3 because 'what' is not explicitly answered; not a 1 because 'when' is explicit and strong.

2 / 3

Trigger Term Quality

It surfaces natural terms a user would actually say ('health, medicine, finance, law, safety, news', 'content quality', 'high-quality-seeming content underperforms'), giving good coverage of common phrasings. Not a 2 because it goes well beyond a single keyword into multiple real-world variations.

3 / 3

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The YMYL/health-finance-law-safety-news niche with explicit field triggers is a clear, narrow scope unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. Not a 2 because the trigger set is specific enough to avoid overlap with general SEO or content-audit skills.

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.