Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is token-efficient and well-structured with proper progressive disclosure, but the core guidance is abstract and lacks executable examples or validation checkpoints within the body itself.
Suggestions
Add a small executable example in the body (e.g., a before/after markup snippet showing an invalid vs. valid aria-expanded value) so guidance is copy-paste ready without opening the reference.
Include an explicit validation step in the review workflow, such as how to confirm the fix with browser accessibility tooling or a screen reader, to close the workflow-clarity gap.
Tighten the generic Check/Fix/Explain one-liners into specific, concrete instructions rather than restating the rule.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean — short bullet points and one-line sections with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows, so every token earns its place. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | The Quick Reference gives some concrete examples ("aria-expanded='true'", avoid yes/no, check IDs in aria-labelledby/aria-owns) but the Check/Fix sections are abstract ("Validate that all ARIA attribute values conform to the allowed types") with no executable code, deferring examples to the reference file. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Sections (Check, Fix, Explain, Code Review) imply a sequence but it is only implicit, with no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loop for confirming a fix. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview that clearly signals a single one-level-deep reference ("see `references/rule.md`") which exists, with well-organized sections and easy navigation. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |