Content
86%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 high-quality reference body: rule tables with exact, executable values, a clear review-mode/severity/verdict structure with an explicit verification checklist, and exemplary progressive disclosure that offloads depth to two well-signaled, genuinely present reference files. The only real cost is redundancy — the same rules are restated across the rule tables, Red Flags, and Verification sections — which trades token efficiency for review usability.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense, table-driven rule statements with exact values and terse rationale columns; it explains nothing Claude already knows (no 'what CSS is' padding). It sits at 4 rather than 5 because of deliberate triplication — the same rules appear in the Motion/Interaction/Icons tables, again in Red Flags, and again in the Verification checklist — and the Core Philosophy paragraph carries some generic framing ("Great interfaces are a collection of small details that compound") that could be tightened. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is fully concrete and copy-paste ready: exact values like `cubic-bezier(0.2, 0, 0, 1)`, `scale(0.96)`, `font-variant-numeric: tabular-nums`, `@media (hover: hover) and (pointer: fine)`, `transition: { type: "spring", duration: 0.3, bounce: 0 }`, and precise thresholds (44×44px touch, 40×40px desktop, ~100ms stagger, 1.5px/2px icon strokes) cover the common cases. This is an instruction/reference skill and the guidance is maximally actionable without full code blocks. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The review workflow is coherently structured: Review Modes (quick/full with finding caps) → severity classification (HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW) → an explicit verdict decision table (Block / Needs changes / Approve), plus a step-one instruction to identify the project's existing styling system before suggesting changes and an explicit Verification checklist as the validation checkpoint. It falls short of 5 because the operating sequence for conducting a review (when to pick quick vs full, order of category coverage) is implied by tables rather than spelled out as a sequence. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body keeps the high-frequency rules inline and defers deep material to two real, one-level-deep bundle files — `references/motion-principles.md` and `references/design-audit.md` (both present in the bundle) — each introduced with a clearly signaled blockquote stating what it contains and exactly when to load it ("L3, load on demand"). The design-audit reference is explicitly bound back to the same severity scale and finding caps rather than a divergent scheme, making navigation easy. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |