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.
A well-organized, concise overview body with exemplary progressive disclosure via a single clearly signaled reference file. The main gap is actionability: the body's Check/Fix guidance stays at the direction level, delegating all concrete examples, tool names, and verification steps to the reference file.
Suggestions
Inline one concrete before/after example in the Fix section (e.g. '<div aria-labeledby=...>' should be 'aria-labelledby') so the most common case is actionable without opening the reference.
Name the concrete verification tools in the Code Review section (e.g. axe, Lighthouse, the browser accessibility tree) instead of the generic 'browser accessibility tooling or assistive tech'.
Merge or trim the Quick Reference bullets that restate the intro and Check section to remove redundancy.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and well-sectioned, but has minor trimmable redundancy: the intro sentence explains a fact Claude already knows ('Invalid ARIA attributes are ignored by browsers and screen readers...') and the Quick Reference bullet 'Ensure screen readers correctly interpret element roles and states' restates the intro and Check section. Not 3, since these are minor instances rather than pervasive padding. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is directional but incomplete in the body: 'Identify any invalid or misspelled ARIA attributes' and 'Replace invalid ARIA attributes with their correct names' lack any concrete example (e.g. aria-labeledby -> aria-labelledby), named tool, or command - all of those specifics live only in references/rule.md. Not 4 because nothing in the body is directly executable; not 2 because the Check/Fix/Code Review sections do give real, followable direction. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Check -> Fix -> Explain -> Code Review sequence is coherent, 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 skill, so the destructive/batch validation cap does not apply. Not 5 because verification is only a passing mention rather than an explicit checkpoint, and the 'native semantics first' ordering exists only in the description, not the body. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview with a clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference ('For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see references/rule.md') that exists as a real file and delivers exactly what is promised (code examples, tools, verification steps). | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |