Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is concise, well-organized, and uses clean one-level progressive disclosure to a real reference file. Its main weakness is actionability, since the body gives high-level direction while the executable code lives entirely in the reference.
Suggestions
Add one minimal inline code snippet (e.g., a one-line onerror fallback) so the body is self-sufficient for the common case, with deeper variants kept in the reference.
Make the Check/Fix steps more concrete by naming specific DevTools actions or the exact attributes/handlers to look for.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence, with a single brief rationale sentence and concise Quick Reference bullets rather than padded explanations of what images are or how fallbacks work. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Names a concrete technique ('Use onerror to replace broken images with fallbacks') and points to executable examples in the reference, but the body's own Check/Fix steps ('Implement fallback images or placeholder content') are abstract and lack copy-paste-ready code or key details. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | This simple single-purpose skill lays out an unambiguous Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sequence, and the Code Review section directs confirming the fix in DevTools, satisfying the simple-skill carve-out for workflow clarity. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview that clearly signals a one-level-deep reference ('For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see references/rule.md'), and the referenced file exists, matching the score-3 anchor for well-signaled one-level navigation. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |