Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is concise and well-structured with a clear workflow, but it stays at the level of description rather than executable instruction. Adding concrete code or specific values for padding, radius, and spacing would lift actionability.
Suggestions
Provide a concrete code/CSS example showing the outer container, boundary lines, corner markers, and inset inner containers with specific values.
Specify concrete measurements (e.g., padding amounts, border radius, gap between outer frame and inner blocks) instead of 'consistent padding'.
Add a short worked example or template structure for the hero/feature/proof/CTA module separation.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and efficient with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; each line earns its place. It is not below 3 because nothing can be cut without losing meaning. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Steps describe rather than instruct — 'Add visible vertical boundary lines and small corner markers' with no concrete code, CSS, or specific values for padding, radius, or spacing. It is not 3 because there is no executable example, and not 1 because the guidance is concrete enough to follow at a high level. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear numbered sequence for a simple, non-destructive layout task with an unambiguous single process; per the simple-skills note this can score 3 without validation checkpoints. It is not 2 because the steps are well-sequenced and unambiguous. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Under 50 lines with well-organized sections (Use When, Workflow, Guardrails) and no need for external references; the simple-skills note allows a 3. It is not 2 because the structure is clean and appropriately self-contained. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |