Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The skill body is a well-structured, concise overview that delegates detail to a single, real reference file. Its weakness is that the inline guidance is somewhat abstract and the Check/Code Review sections are redundant without explicit verification steps.
Suggestions
Add at least one inline code snippet showing a common invalid ARIA attribute and its corrected form, rather than deferring all examples to references/rule.md.
Clarify the distinction between the 'Check' and 'Code Review' sections, or merge them, to remove redundancy in the workflow.
Add an explicit verification step (e.g., re-run axe/Lighthouse or re-check the accessibility tree) after the Fix step to close the feedback loop.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean — short Quick Reference bullets and one-line Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections — and largely assumes Claude's competence, with only minimal conceptual framing. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete in direction ('Identify...', 'Replace... with their correct names as defined in the WAI-ARIA specification') but lacks specifics and defers all code/examples to references/rule.md, leaving the body itself incomplete. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A light sequence exists (Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review) but the Check and Code Review sections overlap, and there are no explicit validation checkpoints or feedback loops. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview pointing to a real one-level-deep bundle file ('see references/rule.md') for full details, with clearly signaled, easy navigation. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |