Content
57%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.
The body is a well-disclosed overview that correctly pushes implementation detail to a single one-level-deep reference, and its Fix section names the exact ARIA attributes needed. Its weaknesses are redundancy across the Quick Reference/Check/Explain sections, a 'why it matters' preamble, and the absence of any concrete verification loop in the body itself.
Suggestions
Merge the redundant Check/Explain sections into the Quick Reference and drop the opening 'why it matters' sentence — the requirements list already implies it.
Add a concrete validation checkpoint to the workflow, e.g., 'After any fix: tab to the trigger (tooltip must appear), press Escape (tooltip must close), confirm the screen reader announces the tooltip via aria-describedby' — mirroring the Verification section already in references/rule.md.
Include a minimal compliant markup snippet (button with aria-describedby + div with role='tooltip') or an inline pointer to the exact Code Example section of references/rule.md so the Fix is directly executable from the body.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is short and mostly lean, but it opens with a 'why it matters' sentence explaining accessibility consequences Claude already knows ('leave keyboard and screen reader users without important contextual information'), and the Check/Explain sections largely restate the Quick Reference bullets. This matches 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'; it is not anchor 4 because the redundancy spans several sections rather than being a minor trim. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete guidance exists at the attribute level ('role='tooltip', aria-describedby, keyboard triggering, and Escape key dismissal'; 'focusable trigger'; 'hover and focus to show'), but the body contains no markup or code example and the Check section is high-level ('Verify tooltips are keyboard accessible, use appropriate ARIA roles') with no concrete verification method. This fits 'some concrete guidance but incomplete... missing key details'; the executable code exists only in the reference file, so the body alone is not 'mostly executable guidance' (anchor 4). | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A rough Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sequence is present, but it is implicit rather than sequenced, and there is no validation checkpoint confirming a fix actually works (e.g., tab to trigger → tooltip appears → Escape closes). This matches 'steps listed but validation gaps; sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit'. It is not capped at 3 by the destructive/batch rule since this is a review skill, but it also does not reach anchor 4's 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present'. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a genuinely concise overview (requirements, check, fix, review scope) and all detailed material — code examples, framework components, CSS, verification checklist — is appropriately split into a single real file, clearly signaled: 'For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see `references/rule.md`.' The reference is one level deep (verified to exist and contain the details) with no nested references, matching 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references; content appropriately split; easy navigation'. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |