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.
The body is a well-structured, instruction-only audit procedure with unusually concrete acceptance criteria and scoring anchors. Its main gaps are the absence of concrete verification tooling for the checks it names and mild redundancy (the duplicated command allowlist), which keep it just short of fully executable.
Suggestions
Add a concrete verification method per dimension or a small script (e.g., a contrast-ratio calculator or lint command invocations) so checks like 'contrast < 4.5:1' are executable rather than only named.
Deduplicate the 20-command allowlist by defining the allowed set once and referencing it from the 'Suggested command' field, trimming roughly 15 lines.
Make finding verification an explicit workflow step (e.g., 'Re-verify each P0/P1 finding against the source before reporting') instead of only a NEVER-rule.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense with operational checklists and scoring anchors with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but the 20-command allowlist is repeated verbatim twice ('Suggested command' field and Recommended Actions rules) and the closing 'Remember: You're a technical quality auditor...' line is motivational padding. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Highly concrete criteria (contrast < 4.5:1, 44x44px touch targets, animate transform/opacity not width/height), per-dimension 0-4 scoring anchors, and a report table template make the guidance mostly executable. However, no verification method is provided for any check (e.g., how to compute a contrast ratio or detect layout thrashing), leaving a gap between naming checks and executing them. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear sequence is present (context preparation via /frontend-design, five-dimension scan, scored report, prioritized recommended actions, closing message) with scoring anchors as checkpoints. Verification of findings is only implied by the NEVER rule 'Report false positives without verification' rather than an explicit validate-and-recheck step, so minor validation gaps remain. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A single-file skill with no bundle files and well-organized sections; the mandatory /frontend-design dependency is clearly signaled up front. Anchored per-dimension checklists inline are appropriate at this size, though the long command catalogue and per-dimension detail could be split into reference files if the skill grows. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |