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.
A well-organized, lean instruction body for a simple single-purpose review skill: exact attribute values and roles in the Quick Reference, a coherent check/fix/explain flow with fix-verification guidance, and an appropriately split structure pointing to a real one-level-deep reference file. Remaining gaps are minor — trim the motivational opener and duplicated URL, add one inline markup example, and merge the overlapping Check/Code Review sections.
Suggestions
Drop the motivational first sentence (screen-reader users missing updates is known context) and the duplicated rule-page URL to tighten the token budget.
Add one minimal inline example such as `<div role="status" aria-live="polite">Item added to cart</div>` to make the guidance copy-paste ready.
Merge the overlapping Check and Code Review sections into a single review step so the workflow reads as one unambiguous sequence.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and well-sectioned; the Quick Reference bullets deliver dense, useful specifics. Not 5 because the motivational opener ("they won't know their form submitted, their cart updated, or an error occurred") explains motivation Claude already knows, and the rule URL is duplicated from the frontmatter. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, specific directives with exact attribute values and roles — "Use aria-live='polite' for non-urgent updates (cart count, status messages)", "Add aria-live attributes with correct politeness levels (polite, assertive)", plus the key timing gotcha "The live region must exist in DOM before content changes". Not 5 because there is no inline markup example (e.g. a `<div role="status">` snippet) and the Check section is a single generic sentence. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Check → Fix → Explain sequence is coherent and the Code Review section adds verification guidance ("note how to verify the fix with browser accessibility tooling or assistive tech"), which suits this non-destructive review skill. Not 5 because the Check and Code Review sections substantially overlap, blurring the workflow, and steps are not sharply sequenced. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The short body is a clear overview with a single well-signaled, one-level-deep reference — "For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see `references/rule.md`" — and the referenced file exists (156 lines) with no nested references. Content is appropriately split and navigation is easy. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |