Content
92%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is concise, well-structured, and workflow-driven with explicit validation checkpoints and before/after feedback loops. The main weakness is that actionable guidance is mostly instruction-oriented rather than literal executable commands, though that is appropriate for an audit skill.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — it states thresholds, composition warning signs, and tool names without explaining what TTFB/FCP/LCP/CLS mean or why accessibility matters, so every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | It gives concrete, executable guidance — named tools (`need_for_speed`, `take_screenshot`, `inspect_design`), explicit metric thresholds, and composition warning signs — but lacks literal copy-paste commands or rendered example invocations, leaving minor gaps typical of an instruction-oriented skill. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The workflow is a clearly sequenced seven-step process with explicit validation checkpoints: `record_workflow_event` stage:'started' before auditing, a re-test-and-compare step after fixes, and stage:'completed' at the end, plus before/after comparison as a feedback loop. | 5 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist in references/scripts/assets, and the body is a single, well-organized overview of reasonable length with clearly signaled sections and pointers to sibling skills (`studio`) for related detail, which fits the simple-skill exception for well-organized content without nested references. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 19 / 20 Passed |