Content
63%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.
A clean, well-structured overview with a clear use/don't-use boundary and a sensible audit workflow including a re-test checkpoint. Its two weaknesses are that the guidance stops short of executable commands and that the entire substance ("detailed patterns, checklists, and templates") is deferred to a file that is absent from the bundle.
Suggestions
Ship the referenced `resources/implementation-playbook.md` (or remove the reference) — it is cited in both Instructions and Resources but does not exist in the skill directory.
Add executable invocations for the automated scan step, e.g., the axe-core CLI or Lighthouse command lines, and a concrete example of mapping a finding to a WCAG 2.2 criterion.
Deduplicate: drop the intro line that repeats the frontmatter description and consolidate the playbook reference into the Resources section; add an explicit re-test failure loop (fix → re-run → re-check) to close the workflow.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but has minor trimmable padding: the intro line repeats the frontmatter description verbatim, and the `resources/implementation-playbook.md` reference appears in both the Instructions and Resources sections. Not a 5 (duplicated tokens don't earn their place); better than 3 (no unnecessary concept explanations). | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Steps name concrete tools (axe, Lighthouse, WAVE) and concrete manual checks (keyboard navigation, focus order, screen reader flows), but no executable commands, code, or remediation examples are given — "Run automated scans (axe, Lighthouse, WAVE)" is direction without invocation. Some concrete guidance but missing the specific steps to execute matches 3; 4 requires actual commands/code. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The four steps form a coherent audit→map→remediate→re-test sequence with an explicit checkpoint ("Re-test after fixes and document residual risk"), and the safety notes add audit-trail guidance. Not 5 because there is no error-recovery loop (e.g., what to do when re-testing still fails) and severity triage is only mentioned in passing; not 3 because a validation step is explicitly present, not implicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is well-sectioned and defers detail to one reference one level deep — good shape — but the referenced file `resources/implementation-playbook.md` does not exist in the bundle (no resources/, references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories), and the same dangling reference is duplicated in two sections. Structure is present but organization is undermined by a broken, duplicated reference, matching 3. | 3 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |