Content
65%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-structured overview that correctly delegates implementation detail to a real one-level-deep reference file. Its weakness is that the Check/Explain/Code Review sections give high-level direction without any concrete verification method (command, selector, or example HTML) inline, and the workflow lacks an explicit validation checkpoint for confirming the rendered output.
Suggestions
Add a concrete verification step to the Check section, e.g. `curl -s https://example.com/article | grep -i 'rel="author"'` or a CSS/HTML selector to look for, so Claude can execute the check without opening the reference.
Make the workflow sequence explicit and add a validation checkpoint, e.g. '1. Fetch the rendered page 2. Locate the byline in the rendered HTML 3. Verify the author link resolves to a real bio page' rather than loosely titled sections.
Surface the pointer to references/rule.md earlier (e.g. in a Quick Reference line) so Claude knows where the code example lives before reading the full body.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~30-line body is terse with well-scoped sections; only the E-E-A-T intro sentence ("A visible author byline is a critical E-E-A-T signal...") and the 'Code Review' section, which repeats the frontmatter description, explain things Claude already knows. Efficient with minor trimming possible. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The Fix section gives concrete elements ("the author's name, role, and a link to their profile") but Check, Explain, and Code Review are directive without any verification method — no curl command, selector, or HTML example appears in the body, leaving the executable guidance in references/rule.md. Some concrete guidance, but incomplete for executing the check itself. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review implies a rough sequence, but the sequence is implicit (unnumbered, unordered steps) and there is no validation checkpoint for the verification step — e.g. how to confirm the rendered page actually displays the byline. This matches 'steps present but checkpoints missing or implicit'. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a short, well-organized overview with a clearly signaled one-level-deep reference — "For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see references/rule.md" — and the referenced file exists and holds the code example. Content is appropriately split and easy to navigate. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |