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.

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

Quality

Content

72%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 content is a well-structured, mostly lean audit skill with concrete check and fix guidance and excellent progressive disclosure via a single clearly signaled reference file. The main gap is the absence of explicit validation/verification checkpoints in the workflow.

Suggestions

Add an explicit verification step after Fix, e.g. 'Verify: re-check each fixed page for a visible byline, linked bio, at least one primary-source citation, a reviewed-by note, and a last-reviewed date.'

Make the Check section a numbered sequence (identify candidate pages → audit each against the E-E-A-T checklist → record gaps) so the workflow order is unambiguous.

Tighten or move the opening context paragraph into the reference file so the body leads directly with the actionable Check step.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is lean with well-organized sections and avoids explaining basic concepts; the only mild over-explanation is the opening 'why this matters' context paragraph, which is domain-specific rather than common knowledge.

4 / 5

Actionability

The Check section gives a concrete list of per-page questions and the Fix section gives specific remediation steps (bylines, bio links, primary-source citations, 'reviewed by' notes, last-reviewed dates), though it stops short of how to verify each fix.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review structure gives a recognizable sequence, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints confirming the fixes were correctly applied; verification is only implicitly hinted at in the Code Review section.

3 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview with clearly labeled sections and a single, well-signaled one-level-deep pointer to the existing references/rule.md for implementation details, matching the clear-overview anchor.

5 / 5

Total

16

/

20

Passed

Description

56%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 strong, explicit trigger guidance and good keyword coverage for the YMYL SEO niche, but it lacks a clear statement of what the skill actually does and the opening 'Use when applies to any site...' is grammatically broken. Specificity and the 'what' component are the weak points.

Suggestions

Lead with a concrete 'what' statement before the triggers, e.g. 'Identifies YMYL pages and audits them for E-E-A-T trust signals (author credentials, expert review, cited sources, freshness).'

Fix the broken grammar of the first clause ('Use when applies to any site...') by giving it a subject, e.g. 'Use when the site covers health, medicine, finance, law, safety, news, or similar YMYL fields.'

Name concrete outputs/actions (flag missing author bylines, missing citations, missing review notes) instead of the generic 'auditing content quality'.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

The description names the YMYL domain but the only actions ('auditing content quality', 'investigating why...content underperforms') are generic and abstract with no concrete capabilities, matching the 'names domain but actions minimal/generic' anchor.

2 / 5

Completeness

It has an explicit and strong 'when' (two 'Use when' clauses) but only a vague implied 'what' (auditing/investigating), so it sits between the 'only when present' and 'clear what but weak when' anchors.

3 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

It lists natural trigger fields (health, medicine, finance, law, safety, news) plus the recognizable SEO term 'YMYL' and the natural phrase 'why high-quality-seeming content underperforms', giving good keyword coverage with only minor synonyms missing.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

YMYL/E-E-A-T auditing is a fairly distinct SEO niche with specific triggers, though 'auditing content quality' has minor overlap with general content-quality skills.

4 / 5

Total

13

/

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.