Content
71%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 body is a well-structured, token-efficient overview that correctly delegates implementation detail to a single verified reference file. Its weakest point is actionability: the in-body Check/Fix guidance lacks any concrete detection pattern or valid-vs-invalid role examples, so the reviewer must open the reference before they can act.
Suggestions
Inline one or two concrete detection aids in the Check section, e.g. a grep for role= attributes or the most common misspellings (btn, check-box, tooltip-item), so the check is executable without opening the reference.
Name a specific verification tool in the Code Review section (e.g. axe DevTools, WAVE, or a screen reader pass) instead of the generic "browser accessibility tooling or assistive tech".
Tighten or merge the meta-templated "Explain" section, which instructs Claude to explain rather than adding concrete guidance.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The 35-line body is lean: terse bullets in Quick Reference and short Check/Fix sections that assume Claude's competence. Minor trimmable padding remains in the meta-templated "Explain" section and the opening motivation sentence, keeping it just below anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The Check step gives concrete direction ("Search for any role attributes that use non-standard or misspelled ARIA role values") and the Fix step names the right replacement strategy, but the body itself contains no executable specifics — no detection pattern or query, no inline examples of valid vs. misspelled roles (those all live in references/rule.md). This sits between anchors 2 and 4: guidance is present but incomplete within the body. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A coherent Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sequence covers detection, remediation, and communication, and the Code Review section includes a verification hint ("note how to verify the fix with browser accessibility tooling or assistive tech"). This is a non-destructive review task so the validation cap does not apply; it falls short of 5 only because no specific verification tool or loop is named. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview with a single, clearly signaled, one-level-deep pointer — "For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see `references/rule.md`" — and that file exists as a real 54-line bundle containing the examples, exceptions, and standards detail. Content is appropriately split with easy navigation, matching the anchor-5 example. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |