Content
63%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 compact, well-structured overview with excellent progressive disclosure to a real, well-organized reference file. Its weaknesses are redundancy between the Quick Reference, Check, and Fix sections, a rationale sentence that assumes less knowledge than Claude has, and guidance that names the right attributes but stops short of key details like contrast thresholds or an inline minimal example.
Suggestions
Merge the Check and Fix sections into the Quick Reference (or fold them into a single Check/Fix pair) so the same criteria are not restated three times, and drop the opening rationale sentence about why inaccessible tooltips are bad.
Add the missing key details behind the vague criteria: the contrast threshold behind 'Ensure sufficient contrast' and the hover/focus delay timings referenced by 'timing considerations'.
Include one minimal inline markup example of a compliant tooltip trigger (button with aria-describedby and Escape handling) so the review criteria are executable without opening the reference file.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The opening rationale ('Inaccessible tooltips leave keyboard and screen reader users without important contextual information...') explains a concept Claude already knows, and the Check and Fix sections largely restate the Quick Reference bullets ('Verify tooltips are keyboard accessible... use appropriate ARIA roles'), so the body could be noticeably tightened without losing information. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete attribute-level guidance is present ('Use aria-describedby to associate tooltip with trigger', 'role='tooltip'', 'Escape key dismissal'), but the body contains no executable code example and omits key details such as the contrast threshold behind 'Ensure sufficient contrast' and the timing considerations named in Explain without specifics. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The core review action is unambiguous and well-organized ('Flag exact elements, attributes, and routes where the rendered HTML violates the rule') with enumerated criteria in Quick Reference, but there are no verification checkpoints and the relationship between the Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review modes is left implicit, keeping it below the level-5 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A concise overview body with a clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference ('For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see references/rule.md'), which exists as a well-organized 341-line file with no further nesting — an appropriate split with easy navigation. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |