Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A compact, well-structured review skill that delegates detail appropriately to one reference. Its weakness is the action sections, which stay abstract rather than giving concrete, executable verification steps.
Suggestions
Replace the abstract Check/Fix stubs with concrete guidance, e.g. a verification step such as 'Confirm the live region node exists before the update and assert it receives the new text.'
Add a brief Code Review example showing a before/after snippet (missing aria-live -> fixed markup) so the action is copy-paste ready rather than descriptive.
Sequence Check -> Fix -> Verify explicitly with a verification checkpoint so the workflow reads as a guided loop rather than parallel one-liners.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean body with a bullet quick-reference and short section stubs; assumes Claude's competence and avoids explaining ARIA basics, though the Quick Reference and Fix sections lightly overlap. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Quick Reference gives concrete attributes (polite/assertive, role=alert/status, DOM-first), but the Check/Fix/Explain stubs are abstract ('appropriately', 'correct politeness levels') with no executable example in the body. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review read as parallel aspects rather than a sequenced workflow, and no explicit validation checkpoint is given for verifying a fix. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | Body is a concise overview pointing to a single real one-level-deep reference (references/rule.md, verified present) with clearly signaled, well-organized sections. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |