CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

vannifr/responsive-visual-review

Use when you need a structural visual review of a website across breakpoints (mobile/tablet/desktop) to catch layout breaks, overflow, and spacing issues without a baseline or hosted regression service. NOT for CRO/conversion/copy review, NOT for new UI design work, NOT for automated pixel-diff regression gating in CI, NOT for accessibility/contrast auditing.

62

Quality

78%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

SecuritybySnyk

Low

Low-risk findings worth noting

Overview
Quality
Evals
Security
Files

Quality

Content

67%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 a well-structured, highly actionable four-phase workflow with concrete breakpoints, tool invocations, and a severity-ranked reporting contract. Its main weakness is redundancy: the exclusion list appears twice (description plus intro plus a dedicated 'When not to use' section), and a small capture-verification checkpoint is missing.

Suggestions

Remove the 'When not to use this' section (and the duplicated negatives in the intro paragraph) — the frontmatter description already carries this exclusion list and is always loaded with the body, saving ~25 lines of tokens.

Add a short copy-paste-ready Playwright fallback script for the no-MCP case, since the specific method calls are already named but not assembled into a runnable command.

Insert a validation checkpoint in Phase 1 (e.g., confirm each screenshot is full-page and non-blank before moving to the checklist) to close the workflow's only sequence gap.

DimensionReasoningScore

Conciseness

The body is mostly checklist-driven and efficient, but the intro paragraph ('not a pixel-diff regression tool, not a conversion/copy audit, not an aesthetic design critique') and the ~25-line 'When not to use this' section restate the frontmatter description's exclusion list, which is always loaded alongside the body. This duplication is more than the 'minor instances' of the 4 anchor, though there is no padded concept explanation that would warrant a 2.

3 / 5

Actionability

Gives exact viewport dimensions ('375x812 (mobile - iPhone-class)', '768x1024', '1440x900'), concrete tool calls ('browser_resize + browser_navigate + browser_take_screenshot with fullPage: true', 'page.setViewportSize()', 'page.screenshot({ fullPage: true })'), a file naming convention, and a model finding ('pricing table overflows viewport at 375px, third column cut off'). Not 5 because no copy-paste-ready fallback script is provided for the no-MCP case.

4 / 5

Workflow Clarity

Phases 0-3 (Scope -> Capture -> Structural checklist -> Findings) are clearly sequenced with defaults, a page-count cap ('More than 8 pages in one run dilutes the review'), a severity table, and an explicit output contract. Not 5 because there is no checkpoint verifying captures succeeded (e.g., full-page rendered, no blank screenshots) before the checklist walkthrough, though the workflow is read-only so the destructive-operation cap does not apply.

4 / 5

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and the ~130-line body is one well-sectioned file whose 16-item checklist is the core operational content, so inlining is appropriate and navigation is easy. Not 5 because the 'When not to use this' block duplicates content that belongs in the description, keeping the body from being a purely clean overview-plus-operations split.

4 / 5

Total

15

/

20

Passed

Description

78%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.

A strong description with a clear 'Use when' trigger, concrete capability statements, and an unusually explicit exclusion list that minimizes mis-triggering. The main gap is that the 'when' clause restates the capability instead of adding distinct user-side trigger phrases, and a few natural synonyms (e.g. 'responsive') are missing.

DimensionReasoningScore

Specificity

Names the domain ('structural visual review of a website across breakpoints (mobile/tablet/desktop)') and several concrete detection targets ('layout breaks, overflow, and spacing issues'), matching the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor. Not 5 because it doesn't enumerate fuller coverage such as full-page capture or severity-ranked findings.

4 / 5

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ('structural visual review ... to catch layout breaks, overflow, and spacing issues') and when ('Use when you need a structural visual review ...'). Not 5 because the 'when' clause largely restates the what rather than offering distinct concrete trigger phrases a user would say.

4 / 5

Trigger Term Quality

Contains natural phrases users would say ('visual review', 'layout breaks', 'overflow', 'spacing issues', 'mobile/tablet/desktop') plus strong negative triggers ('CRO/conversion/copy review', 'pixel-diff regression gating in CI', 'accessibility/contrast auditing'). Not 5 because common synonyms like 'responsive' or 'screen sizes' are absent.

4 / 5

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The explicit exclusion list ('NOT for CRO/conversion/copy review, NOT for new UI design work, NOT for automated pixel-diff regression gating in CI, NOT for accessibility/contrast auditing') carves a clear niche with minimal conflict risk against adjacent design, CRO, CI, and a11y skills.

5 / 5

Total

17

/

20

Passed

Validation

100%

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Reviewed

Table of Contents