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 body is a lean, well-sectioned overview (Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review) with concrete link-count guidance and a clean pointer to references/rule.md, but it duplicates reference material, lacks an explicit verification checkpoint, and its Check step is vague about what 'sufficient' means.
Suggestions
Add an explicit verification step with a concrete method (e.g. 'After edits, re-fetch the rendered page and count internal/external links in the article body; re-check if counts fall below 2 internal / 1 external') to close the workflow validation gap.
Remove the conceptual intro paragraph and fold the Quick Reference bullets into Fix to eliminate duplication with the body and references/rule.md.
Make Check measurable — replace 'a sufficient number of relevant internal and external links' with the same numeric thresholds used in Fix.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The intro paragraph ('A natural link profile within articles establishes authority, improves site crawlability...') explains SEO background Claude already knows, and the Quick Reference bullets ('Include a balanced mix of internal and external links...', 'Link to authoritative external sources...') largely duplicate the Fix section ('Add 2-3 internal links... 1-2 external links'). Mostly efficient but with unnecessary explanation and duplication; not 2 because there is no heavy padding or library-lesson filler. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Fix gives concrete, numeric guidance ('Add 2-3 internal links to related content and 1-2 external links to authoritative sources') and Code Review directs specific actions ('Flag exact routes or templates where search-facing output violates the rule, and describe how to verify the final page output'). Not 5 because Check is soft ('ensure it contains a sufficient number of relevant internal and external links') and Explain is abstract. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sequence is present, but verification is only implicit — the body tells Claude to 'describe how to verify the final page output' without any explicit checkpoint or feedback loop of its own. Steps listed with validation gaps. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a short overview with a clearly signaled, existing one-level-deep reference ('For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see references/rule.md'). Not 5 because the pointer is a single generic footer line rather than contextual per-section navigation, and body content (intro/Quick Reference) duplicates 'Why It Matters' material that already lives in references/rule.md. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |