Content
46%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 reasonably well-organized overview with a correct single-level reference to references/rule.md, but it offers almost no concrete guidance itself — every section is a high-level directive with the specifics deferred — and it carries redundant Quick Reference content and a background-knowledge intro.
Suggestions
Replace the high-level directives with concrete inline steps, e.g., 'curl the live URL and diff the rendered DOM against the source template', 'check the article byline and fact-check dates in the rendered HTML', or 'verify structured data with the Rich Results Test' — the body currently gives no executable method at all.
Cut the Quick Reference section (it duplicates Check/Fix) and the opening sentence about search engine priorities, which Claude already knows.
Add a validation checkpoint after the Fix step, such as re-inspecting the rendered page and confirming no conflicting canonical/robots/structured-data signals before marking the rule satisfied.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is short and mostly lean, but the opening sentence ('Search engines prioritize helpful, reliable, people-first content; unedited AI content often lacks the depth and accuracy required for high rankings') explains what Claude already knows, and the Quick Reference bullets substantially duplicate the Check and Fix sections. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance stays at the hint level — 'Review the content to see if it provides unique value', 'Rewrite AI-generated sections to include original research', 'Flag exact routes or templates' — with no concrete steps for how to inspect rendered HTML, check response headers, or evaluate originality; all specifics are deferred to references/rule.md. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sections give a recognizable sequence, but there are no validation checkpoints (e.g., verifying the rendered page after a fix or confirming no conflicting structured-data signals), matching 'steps listed but validation gaps'. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A short, well-sectioned overview body points to a single one-level-deep reference ('For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see references/rule.md' — the file exists), though the pointer is tacked on below a trailing '---' divider rather than integrated into the relevant sections. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 12 / 20 Passed |