Content
78%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 content is a well-organized, concise review skill that delegates detail to a real one-level-deep reference, with concrete actionable guidance and a clear workflow. It stops short of top marks only because of a minor flourish and an implicit rather than explicit validation checkpoint.
Suggestions
Remove or tighten the opening 'mystery meat' sentence so every line earns its place.
Make the verification checkpoint explicit in the body (e.g. a 'Verify' step naming axe/Lighthouse and keyboard/screen-reader re-test) rather than only implying it inside Code Review.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean with well-scoped Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections, but the opening 'mystery meat' sentence is a flourish that assumes less competence than needed and could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives concrete, actionable review guidance ('Audit all interactive elements... for missing or unhelpful accessible names', 'Add descriptive text content or aria-label attributes') with a clear Code Review procedure; minor gaps as executable examples live only in the reference file. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear Check -> Fix -> Explain -> Code Review sequence with an explicit verification cue ('note how to verify the fix with browser accessibility tooling or assistive tech'), though the Code Review step overlaps with Check and the validation checkpoint is implied rather than explicit. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview with a single, clearly signaled one-level-deep reference ('see references/rule.md') that exists as a real file, and content is appropriately split between overview and detail. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |