Content
78%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 well-structured, lean review skill with an excellent progressive-disclosure split: the body carries a concise checklist while code examples correctly live in references/rule.md. The main improvement opportunities are removing the Quick Reference/Fix redundancy and sharpening actionability with one inline violation example.
Suggestions
Merge the Quick Reference bullets with the Check section — the two currently repeat the same four points (labels, file types/limits, progress feedback, drag-and-drop).
Inline one short before/after markup snippet (e.g. an unlabeled `<input type="file">` vs. one with a label, accept, and aria-describedby) so the check is executable without opening the reference file.
Clarify how the sections relate as a workflow — e.g. a one-line lead-in stating the order (review rendered markup → flag violations → apply fixes → explain to the user).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean — short sections, a four-bullet quick reference, no background on what accessibility is or how ARIA works, and it delegates examples to the reference file. It falls short of 5 because the Quick Reference bullets substantially duplicate the Check and Fix sections (labels, file types, feedback, drag-and-drop all appear twice), so a few tokens do not earn their place. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The guidance names concrete, checkable items — 'proper labels, accept attributes for file types', 'accessible feedback for upload progress and errors', 'ARIA live region feedback', 'drag-and-drop alternatives', and instructs to 'Flag exact elements, attributes, and routes'. Per the instruction-only scoring note, absent code is not penalized, but it stays at 4 rather than 5 because the body contains no example of a violating or corrected markup pattern — everything concrete lives one file away. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sections form a coherent, clearly delineated process with unambiguous section headers, and no validation checkpoints are required for a non-destructive review task. It does not reach 5 because the stages are never ordered or related to each other (e.g. Check and Code Review overlap without clarifying when each applies), leaving a minor ambiguity about the intended workflow. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a clear, well-organized overview and the single reference — 'see `references/rule.md`' — is explicitly signaled with a purpose statement ('full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance'), matches the actual bundle structure (references/rule.md exists), and is exactly one level deep. This matches the 5 anchor for a clean split between overview and detail. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |