Content
35%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
This skill reads as a high-level process outline rather than actionable guidance. It lacks concrete tools, commands, code examples, or specific WCAG criteria mappings that would make it useful. The workflow structure is reasonable but needs validation checkpoints and the referenced implementation playbook is missing from the bundle.
Suggestions
Add concrete tool recommendations and executable commands (e.g., `npx axe-core`, `lighthouse --accessibility`, specific browser DevTools steps) instead of abstract instructions like 'Run automated scans'.
Include at least one concrete example of a finding mapped to a WCAG criterion with severity, user impact, and specific remediation code (e.g., fixing a missing alt attribute or ARIA label).
Add explicit validation checkpoints between steps, such as 'Verify automated scan covers at least X% of pages before proceeding to manual checks' and a feedback loop for re-testing after remediation.
Provide the referenced `resources/implementation-playbook.md` bundle file, or inline the most critical actionable content (tooling setup, common violation patterns, remediation snippets) directly in the skill.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The skill includes some unnecessary sections like 'Context' which restates the description, and 'Use this skill when' / 'Do not use this skill when' sections that are somewhat verbose. The instructions themselves are reasonably lean but the overall framing adds padding. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | The instructions are vague and abstract — 'Run automated scans,' 'Perform manual checks,' 'Map findings to WCAG criteria' — without specifying any concrete tools, commands, code snippets, or specific techniques. There is no executable guidance; it reads as a high-level process description rather than actionable instructions. | 1 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps are listed in a logical sequence (scope → scan → manual check → map → remediate → re-test), but there are no explicit validation checkpoints, no feedback loops for failed re-tests, and no concrete criteria for when to proceed between steps. The 're-test after fixes' step lacks specificity. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The skill references `resources/implementation-playbook.md` for detailed procedures, which is a good one-level-deep reference. However, no bundle files were provided, so the reference is unverifiable, and the main content is thin enough that it's unclear what value the split provides without the referenced file actually existing. | 2 / 3 |
Total | 7 / 12 Passed |