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 clean, token-efficient overview that delegates detail correctly to references/rule.md, but its guidance stays at the level of direction rather than instruction — no link examples, no anchor-text samples, and no verification step in the Check/Fix flow. Structure is a strength; concreteness is the main gap.
Suggestions
Add a short good/bad example pair in the Fix section (e.g., descriptive anchor text vs. bare "click here" or a raw URL) so the guidance becomes copy-paste actionable.
Include a concrete verification step in the Check or Fix flow, such as confirming each added link resolves (HTTP 200) and points to a reputable domain in the rendered HTML, not just the source template.
Tighten the opening E-E-A-T sentence to a single clause since Claude already knows the E-E-A-T framework.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and well-sectioned (Quick Reference, Check, Fix, Explain, Code Review) with no padding of concepts Claude already knows. The one-sentence E-E-A-T intro slightly over-explains a framework Claude is familiar with, which keeps it just below the 'every token earns its place' level of 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance such as "Add external links to reputable websites (e.g., .gov, .edu, or industry leaders)" and "Flag exact routes or templates where search-facing output violates the rule" is concrete at a high level, but there are no examples of good vs. bad anchor text or sample link HTML for what is ultimately an HTML-output task. This falls between 'some concrete guidance but incomplete' (3) and 'mostly executable' (4), closer to 3 due to the missing specifics. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sections provide a recognizable sequence, but each step is loosely defined ("Review the content for any factual claims") with no verification checkpoint for confirming added links are actually authoritative or render correctly. Steps present but checkpoints missing matches the 3 anchor; it is not a destructive/batch operation so the cap is not a factor, but the missing validation also blocks a 4. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | This is a simple, single-purpose skill under 50 lines with well-organized sections and exactly one clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference ("see `references/rule.md`") that exists in the bundle. Implementation detail is appropriately deferred to the reference file, matching the simple-skill exception for a top score. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |