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, well-structured, and provides a clear authoring workflow with a QA validation gate, making it efficient and navigable. Its main gap is the absence of a concrete worked example showing a finished guideline output.
Suggestions
Add a short worked example of one finished component rule (anatomy, states, accessible acceptance criteria) to make the structural guidance copy-paste ready.
Show a before/after snippet illustrating the 'must vs should' constraint language on a real rule.
Optionally move the full token/typography tables into a referenced file while keeping the overview lean, if the skill grows beyond its current size.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a lean bullet-and-section list that assumes Claude's competence (e.g., 'WCAG 2.2 AA, keyboard-first interactions') without explaining concepts Claude already knows, matching the score-3 anchor of every token earning its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It gives concrete structural guidance (required states list, required output structure, 'Use must/should' constraint language) but offers no worked example of a finished guideline, fitting the score-2 anchor of 'some concrete guidance but incomplete'. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'Guideline Authoring Workflow' lays out a clear 6-step sequence ending in a QA checklist that functions as a validation gate, matching the score-3 anchor of a clear sequence with explicit checkpoints. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The content is self-contained with no external references needed and is organized into clearly labeled sections (Mission, Style Foundations, Workflow, Quality Gates), so per the simple-skill guidance it scores 3 on well-organized structure. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |