Content
57%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is well-organized with a clean one-level-deep reference to a verified bundle file, but it is held back by an unnecessary concept-explanation directive, vague scanning guidance without tooling, and missing validation checkpoints in the check→fix workflow.
Suggestions
Drop or trim the 'Explain' section's directive to explain 'crawl budget' and the impact intro — Claude already knows these and the tokens compete with context.
Add a concrete scanning method or tool (e.g. a crawler command, grep for href targets, or a link-checker) so 'Scan the website' becomes executable rather than abstract.
Insert an explicit validation checkpoint in the workflow — e.g. after fixing, re-crawl the affected routes and confirm no 404/5xx remains before treating the rule as satisfied.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean, but the intro sentence explains broken links' impact ('frustrate users and waste crawl budget ... harming your site's SEO') and the 'Explain' section directs explaining 'crawl budget' — a concept Claude already knows, which the rubric penalizes. Not score 3 because these tokens do not earn their place; not score 1 because most sections are efficient. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Some concrete guidance exists ('Identify and fix all internal links that return 404 or 5xx', 'Update the broken link to the correct URL or remove it', 'Flag exact routes or templates'), but there are no executable commands, tools, or code in the body and 'Scan the website' is vague with no method. Not score 1 because it gives specific actionable direction rather than purely abstract description. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A loose Check → Fix sequence is present and well-sectioned, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints in the body, and batch link-fixing across a site warrants a verify/re-crawl step. Per the rubric, missing validation in batch operations caps this at 2. Not score 1 because the steps are listed and ordered. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview split into clear sections and points to a single one-level-deep reference ('see references/rule.md') that exists on disk and is clearly signaled, matching the score-3 anchor. Not score 2 because navigation is easy and content is appropriately split rather than inlined. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |