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-structured, lean accessibility rule with clean progressive disclosure to a real reference file. Its main weakness is the absence of inline executable examples and explicit verification checkpoints in the body itself.
Suggestions
Add one small inline HTML snippet showing a corrected progressbar with aria-label so the body is self-sufficient without opening the reference.
Merge or differentiate the ## Check section from the Quick Reference list to remove the duplicated 'check if all progress bar elements have an accessible name' wording.
Add a brief inline verification step (e.g., 'Confirm the name appears in the accessibility tree') to give the workflow an explicit checkpoint.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude knows ARIA basics, but the duplicated 'Check if all progress bar elements...' under ## Check repeats the Quick Reference guidance, leaving minor trim opportunities. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete directives are present ('Use aria-label or aria-labelledby', 'Provide aria-valuenow, aria-valuemin, and aria-valuemax') and the reference file holds executable HTML, but the body itself has no inline code example. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Check -> Fix -> Explain -> Code Review sequence is clear and the task is simple, but there are no explicit verification checkpoints or feedback loops in the body (verification lives only in the reference). | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A concise overview with a single, clearly signaled one-level reference ('see references/rule.md') that exists in the bundle, with no nested references. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |