Content
61%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 overview that appropriately delegates detail to a real references/rule.md file. It is weakest on actionability and workflow clarity because the body itself contains no executable examples and only an implicit, un-validated review sequence.
Suggestions
Add one inline executable example (e.g., a before/after slider markup snippet) so the body is actionable without requiring the reference file.
Make the review sequence explicit and numbered (identify roles → check required attrs → flag violations → verify with axe/a11y tree) with a validation checkpoint.
Add a brief verification step (e.g., 'Confirm with the browser accessibility tree or axe') as an explicit checkpoint in the Code Review section.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean with short Quick Reference, Check, Fix, and Explain sections that assume Claude's competence; minor redundancy between the opening line and the Check/Fix sections could be trimmed. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete in intent ('Ensure attributes like aria-valuenow for sliders are present') but the body itself contains no executable code or commands — concrete examples live only in the referenced rule.md. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Sections imply a sequence (Quick Reference → Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review) but there are no explicit numbered steps and no validation checkpoint for verifying the fix, which the Code Review section only hints at. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview with a single clearly signaled one-level-deep reference to references/rule.md (a real file), and content is appropriately split rather than inlined. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |