Content
71%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.
A lean, well-structured audit skill with concrete fix steps, a copy-ready example, and a properly signaled one-level reference file. Its main cost is redundancy: the trust/E-E-A-T rationale is repeated across three sections and could be consolidated into one.
Suggestions
Consolidate the trust/E-E-A-T rationale: the intro paragraph, the first two Quick Reference bullets, and the Explain section all restate the same claim — merge them into one place (e.g., keep Explain and cut the redundant intro sentence and Quick Reference bullets).
Add a small executable snippet for the Code Review section (e.g., a grep or JS one-liner to extract external <a href> elements and their rel attributes) so the parse/verify/flag steps are directly runnable.
Add an explicit feedback loop in Code Review, e.g., 'flag issues → apply the Fix steps → re-run the check until no flags remain', to close the audit cycle.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is short but repeats the same trust/E-E-A-T rationale three times: the intro ('Pages that cite their sources rank better... positive trust signal'), Quick Reference ('demonstrates E-E-A-T and improves credibility'), and Explain ('Pages that cite reputable external sources are treated as more trustworthy... demonstrate E-E-A-T'). This is mostly efficient but includes unnecessary explanation that could be tightened, fitting the 3 anchor better than the 4 anchor's 'minor instances of over-explanation'. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | The Fix section gives five ordered, concrete steps with specific rel values, and the example replacement ('According to <a href="https://web.dev/performance/" rel="noopener noreferrer">...') is copy-paste ready; Check and Code Review give specific, countable criteria. It falls short of the 5 anchor because no executable snippet or command is given for the parsing/counting steps in Code Review, leaving minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Check → Fix → Code Review structure gives a clear sequence, with Code Review acting as an explicit verification pass (parse, verify, flag, count). It misses the 5 anchor because there is no feedback loop back from flagged issues to re-verification, though this audit-only skill is neither destructive nor high-risk, so the batch-validation cap does not apply. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise ~40-line overview with well-organized sections and a clearly signaled one-level-deep pointer to references/rule.md ('For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see references/rule.md'), and the referenced file exists and contains exactly that material. This matches the 5 anchor for a clear overview with well-signaled, one-level references. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |