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 content is well-structured and lean with excellent progressive disclosure to a single reference file, but the body's guidance is high-level: it lacks concrete validation tooling and explicit verification checkpoints, capping actionability and workflow clarity.
Suggestions
Name concrete validation tools or methods in the Check section (e.g. the W3C validator, browser DevTools 'Elements' view, or a specific crawler) so the guidance is executable, not just descriptive.
Add an explicit Verify/Validate checkpoint step in the workflow (e.g. re-fetch the rendered HTML after fixes and confirm tags are closed) to lift workflow clarity above 3.
Surface at least one short code snippet or command inline in the body rather than deferring all examples to the reference, so the core fix is immediately actionable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with short, sectioned guidance and no heavy padding; the only minor over-explanation is the intro sentence on why malformed HTML matters, which Claude already knows. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | It lists specific things to check (unclosed tags, nesting, stray tags, head/body hierarchy) and gives concrete framing in Code Review, but the body names no tools, commands, or methods for validating or verifying HTML, leaving key execution details missing. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A rough Check -> Fix -> Explain -> Code Review sequence is present, but there are no explicit validation/verification checkpoints in the body; per the destructive/batch-audit cap this stays at 3. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise, well-organized overview with clearly signaled, one-level-deep navigation to references/rule.md (a real file), keeping detail appropriately out of SKILL.md. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |