Content
87%Weight 40%Scale 1-3Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A tight, well-organized accessibility ruleset with concrete before/after examples and a priority table. The main gap is the absence of an explicit validate-after-fix feedback loop in the review workflow.
Suggestions
Add an explicit verification step to the review workflow, e.g. after applying a fix, re-check the snippet to confirm the violation is resolved before moving on.
Add a short checklist of the top critical checks (names, keyboard, focus) at the end of "review guidance" so Claude can confirm coverage rather than relying on the scattered rules.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean rule-based content with no padding explaining concepts Claude already knows; every section earns its place (priority table, terse rules, before/after snippets). | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete, copy-paste-ready before/after HTML in "common fixes" plus specific actionable rule checks ("icon-only buttons must have aria-label", "do not use tabindex greater than 0"). It is below 3 only in that the bulk is guidance rather than executable commands, but as an instruction skill the guidance is specific and actionable. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Invocation modes and a structured review output (violations / why / fix) are sequenced, but there is no explicit verification checkpoint that a fix actually resolves the violation. Not 3 because validation/feedback loops are implicit rather than stated. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | No bundle files exist; the single SKILL.md is well-organized into clearly labeled sections (priority table, quick reference, common fixes, review guidance), which per the simple-skill note scores 3 without external references. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |