Content
57%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The skill body is well-structured with a clean progressive-disclosure split to a real reference file. It is held back by generic, non-executable guidance in the body, mild conceptual fluff, and verification steps that are implied rather than made explicit checkpoints.
Suggestions
Make the Fix section actionable with a minimal inline example (e.g. an icon button with and without `aria-label`) so the body is copy-paste ready rather than deferring all code to the reference.
Add an explicit verification checkpoint in the body workflow (e.g. 'Verify in the accessibility tree / axe that each interactive control exposes a discernable name before approving').
Trim the 'mystery meat' opener and the 'Explain how...' meta-instruction, which restate accessibility fundamentals Claude already knows.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is short and mostly lean, but the 'mystery meat' opener and the 'Explain how clear labels... improve accessibility' meta-instruction restate concepts Claude already knows; these could be trimmed. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete in direction ('Add descriptive text content or `aria-label` attributes to all interactive elements') but generic and lacks executable examples or specifics in the body itself, with code deferred to the reference. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The Check→Fix→Code Review structure gives a clear sequence, but validation/verification checkpoints are only implicit ('note how to verify the fix') and the concrete verification steps live in the reference rather than the body. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | A concise overview with well-organized sections points to a single, clearly signaled one-level-deep reference ('see references/rule.md') that exists as a real file; navigation is easy and content is appropriately split. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |