Content
86%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 content is concise, well-structured, and uses clean progressive disclosure with a real reference file. It loses points only on actionability (no copy-paste markup example) and a missing explicit validation checkpoint in the review workflow.
Suggestions
Add a small executable markup example, e.g. <video>...<track kind="descriptions" src="descriptions.vtt" srclang="en"></video>, so the Fix section is copy-paste ready.
Add an explicit verify-the-fix step in the Check/Code Review sections (e.g., confirm the track loads and is announced by a screen reader) to close the validation gap.
Optionally note how to detect when extended descriptions are needed (insufficient dialogue gaps) as a concrete trigger for that alternative.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and tight: each section is 1-2 lines with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives concrete, specific guidance ('track element with kind=descriptions', extended version with pauses, integrate into narration) but lacks an actual copy-paste markup example such as a <track> snippet covering common cases. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Clear sequenced review workflow (Check -> Fix -> Explain -> Code Review) for a non-destructive inspection skill, but there is no explicit validation/verify-the-fix checkpoint in the body. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview with a single well-signaled one-level-deep reference (references/rule.md exists), cleanly splitting overview from detail with easy navigation. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |