Content
75%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 well-constructed, efficient audit skill: it assumes Claude's competence, provides a concrete WCAG quick reference with numeric thresholds, a sensible testing sequence, and a complete output template. Main gaps are the unnamed automated scanning tool, loosely defined severity tiers, and a long inline report template that could be offloaded to a reference file.
Suggestions
Name a specific automated scanner (e.g., axe DevTools, Lighthouse, pa11y) in the Testing Approach so the first step is executable rather than generic.
Define severity tiers (Critical/Major/Minor) explicitly — e.g., what makes a finding 'Critical' (blocks task completion) vs 'Major' vs 'Minor' — instead of relying on emoji alone.
Consider moving the full output template to a references/output-template.md file and keeping only the section skeleton in SKILL.md to reduce token load.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a tight checklist with concrete thresholds (">= 4.5:1", ">= 44x44 CSS pixels") and no explanations of concepts Claude already knows. Minor trimming opportunities — the ~50-line output template, the "Audit for accessibility: @$1" line duplicating the Usage block, and tips like "Nice to have" — place it at anchor 4 rather than 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance throughout: named WCAG criteria with numeric thresholds, a 5-step testing approach, and a copy-paste output template. It sits at anchor 4 rather than 5 because "Automated scan (catches ~30% of issues)" names no specific tool (e.g., axe, Lighthouse, pa11y) and severity tiers are defined only by emoji. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | "Testing Approach" gives an ordered sequence (automated scan → keyboard-only → screen reader → contrast → zoom) and the output template enforces a complete report; the read-only audit context means the destructive/batch validation cap does not apply. Anchor 4 rather than 5 because there is no explicit verify-before-reporting checkpoint or error-recovery guidance. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist; the ~120-line body is well organized with clear section headers and a single one-level reference ([CONNECTORS.md]). Good structure overall, but at this length the full output template is borderline content that could live in a reference file — anchor 4 (good structure; minor organization gaps) rather than 5, which expects well-split content with signaled references. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |