Content
57%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A well-structured, appropriately split body that delegates detail to a real reference file. It is weakened by repetition between sections, abstract Check/Fix/Explain prose, and an implicit rather than explicit verification step.
Suggestions
Replace the abstract Check/Fix/Explain prose with a short concrete checklist or a minimal runnable HTML snippet, or fold them into the Quick Reference to remove repetition.
Add an explicit verification checkpoint (e.g. 'Run axe/Lighthouse on a rendered state; confirm headers are announced') rather than only hinting at verification in the Code Review section.
Trim the intro's explanation of how screen readers work — Claude already knows this — and lead with the rule and its strongest finding.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean, but the intro restates how screen readers work ('Screen readers read table data cell-by-cell...') and the Check/Fix/Explain sections repeat the Quick Reference bullets, so it could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Quick Reference gives concrete items ('Use <th> with scope', 'Add <caption>'), but Check/Fix/Explain are abstract ('Verify tables use proper th elements...') with no executable code in the body — concrete guidance is present but incomplete. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections provide a loose sequence, but verification is only implicit ('note how to verify the fix') rather than an explicit checkpoint, matching the 'steps listed but validation gaps' anchor. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview that clearly signals a single one-level-deep reference ('see references/rule.md'), and that file exists and holds the detailed examples — matching the well-organized, clear-navigation anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |