Content
65%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 well-structured, token-efficient overview body with exemplary progressive disclosure into references/rule.md. It is let down by actionability and workflow clarity: verification is repeatedly invoked but never made concrete, so Claude must invent its own checks and validation loop.
Suggestions
Add one concrete verification step to the Check section, e.g. "Fetch the rendered page (curl -s https://example.com/about) and confirm the route resolves, is linked from the main nav/footer, and identifies the people/organization".
In Code Review, replace "describe how to verify the final page output" with the actual check to run (inspect the served HTML and HTTP headers, confirm the /about link appears in navigation, re-test after deployment).
Trim or merge the opening E-E-A-T background sentence into the Explain section, since it duplicates content Claude already knows.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~30-line body is lean with clear sections (Quick Reference, Check, Fix, Explain, Code Review) and a single well-placed pointer to references/rule.md, but the opening sentence ("An About page is a primary trust signal for both users and search engines, directly impacting the website's E-E-A-T profile") explains background Claude already knows and overlaps with the Explain section. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Some concrete guidance exists ("Create a new page at `/about`", "clearly identifies the people or organization responsible for the content"), but there is no executable verification step — no fetch/curl of the rendered page, no header check — and the body defers the how of verifying "rendered HTML and HTTP response" without specifics, leaving key details missing. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review forms a recognizable sequence, but validation checkpoints are only implicit: "describe how to verify the final page output" tells Claude to describe verification rather than providing one. Not a destructive/batch operation, so the hard cap is not forced, but anchor 3 (sequence present, checkpoints missing or implicit) fits best. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview whose implementation details are appropriately split into references/rule.md — a real, substantive file (code example, why-it-matters, exceptions, standards, verification steps) that is clearly signaled ("For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see `references/rule.md`"), exactly one level deep with no nested references. The simple-skill exception applies and is fully met. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |