Content
57%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 well-structured as an overview with an exemplary one-level-deep reference pointer, but it is thin on executable guidance and its four sections (Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review) restate the same vague directive without sequencing or verification steps. Tightening the redundancy and adding one concrete inline example would lift it substantially.
Suggestions
Merge or differentiate the redundant Check, Fix, and Code Review sections, which currently repeat the same review-and-remove directive in slightly different wording.
Add one concrete inline artifact — a minimal before/after HTML comment example or a specific build-tool snippet (e.g., a terser/webpack comment-stripping config) — since 'Configure build tools to strip comments automatically' is currently an unactionable hint.
Clarify how the sections relate as a workflow (review rendered markup, flag exact elements/routes, remove, then re-verify the rendered output) with an explicit validation checkpoint.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is short but opens by explaining a concept Claude already knows ('Comments expose internal logic to attackers, increase file size, and can leak sensitive information...'), and the Check, Fix, and Code Review sections repeat the same review-and-remove directive in slightly different words. Not anchor 4 because the redundancy spans multiple sections rather than being a minor trimmable instance. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Quick Reference names concrete comment types ('TODO, FIXME, DEBUG', 'accessibility and legal comments') but offers no executable specifics — 'Configure build tools to strip comments automatically' is a hint with no command or config, and no code example appears inline. Not anchor 2 because named comment types and clear directives are present; not anchor 4 because nothing in the body is copy-paste ready. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Check, Fix, Explain, and Code Review sections imply a progression but read as parallel modes with no stated sequencing and no validation checkpoints (e.g., re-checking rendered output after removal). This matches anchor 3 — steps listed but checkpoints missing or implicit; the simple-skill exception does not apply because the four overlapping directives leave the actual workflow ambiguous. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a lean, well-sectioned overview that delegates details to `references/rule.md` with a clearly signaled purpose ('For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance') — a one-level-deep reference verified to exist and contain the code examples. This matches anchor 5: clear overview, well-signaled single-level reference, appropriate content split. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 14 / 20 Passed |