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 a tight, well-sequenced workflow with strong validation checkpoints and clean progressive disclosure to sibling skills; its main weakness is that several inspection steps are directional guidance rather than concrete, executable commands.
Suggestions
Tighten inspection steps into concrete, repeatable actions (e.g. specific viewport sizes, named devtools panels, or a concrete evidence-capture command) to raise actionability.
For steps that name a tool or script, show the exact invocation where possible instead of describing the action in prose.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence throughout — it never explains concepts Claude already knows and each line earns its place, matching the "lean and efficient" anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Steps give concrete, specific direction ("Capture the full desktop page and a representative mobile viewport", "Run `../design-qa/SKILL.md`"), but inspection steps like "Inspect the DOM and visible behavior for..." are directional rather than fully executable, leaving some incompleteness versus copy-paste-ready guidance. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The numbered workflow has a clear sequence with explicit validation checkpoints — stop conditions in step 2, source-vs-local comparison in step 9, and the gated design-QA pass in step 10 — plus hard rules reinforcing the feedback loop. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Content is organized into a concise workflow and hard-rules section with well-signaled, one-level-deep references to sibling skills and references (`../index/SKILL.md`, `../design-qa/SKILL.md`, `../../references/critical-overrides.md`), keeping the overview navigable. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |