Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is an efficient, well-structured design spec that assumes competence and avoids concept padding. Its main weakness is the absence of a complete, executable HTML/SVG code template to anchor the otherwise precise specifications.
Suggestions
Include one short, complete inline SVG/HTML code skeleton (within the stated ~80-line budget) so the specs are immediately actionable rather than descriptive.
Frame the build as an explicit ordered workflow (e.g. 1. parse data → 2. pick chart type → 3. build SVG → 4. add staggered animation → 5. verify prefers-reduced-motion) with a quick self-check step.
Add a one-line verification cue for the data-handling branch (CSV/JSON direct draw vs. 'schematic' estimation) so the user can confirm the right path was taken.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is a dense, lean specification (colors, sizes, font choices, animation timings) with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It gives precise concrete specs (e.g. accent red #a91d1d, 5.6vw title, '<text class="annot">2024 · 412M</text>') but provides no complete, executable SVG/HTML code block — only the recommendation to hand-write under 80 lines — so guidance is concrete but not copy-paste ready. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The layout is sectioned and the visual/animation ordering is implicit, but it is presented as a reference spec rather than a sequenced build workflow with validation checkpoints, leaving the sequence present but checkpoints implicit. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | At ~23 lines with clear section headers (画布/布局/设计细节) and no need for external references (no references/scripts/assets bundle exists), the single self-contained file is well-organized, satisfying the simple-skill allowance for a top score. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |