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 concise, well-structured overview that appropriately defers implementation detail to a single existing reference file, scoring well on conciseness and progressive disclosure. It is weaker on actionability and workflow clarity: no executable code or concrete test procedure in the body, and no verify-after-fix checkpoint.
Suggestions
Add a concrete test procedure to the Check section, e.g. the specific zoom levels to use (200%/400% browser zoom), how to tab through with overlays open, and which DevTools or keyboard steps to perform.
Inline one minimal copy-paste example of the core fix (e.g., a `scroll-padding-top: 72px` CSS snippet matching the sticky header height) so the body is actionable without opening the reference.
Close the workflow with an explicit verification step after Fix, such as 'Re-tab through the page with the banner and chat widget open at 200% zoom to confirm the focused element stays visible'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~30-line body is lean with a useful Quick Reference, Check, Fix, Explain, and Code Review structure and no concept padding beyond the short intro. Minor over-explanation remains ('A visible focus ring is not enough if...', 'in order to continue the task'), keeping it at anchor 4 rather than the every-token-earns-its-place anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance names a real technique ('Use `scroll-padding` or equivalent spacing', 'reduce overlay height') but contains no executable code, commands, or testing procedure in the body — how to actually validate tab order, at which zoom levels, or with which tools is left unspecified (details are deferred to references/rule.md). This matches anchor 3 ('some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details') rather than 4. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sections give a recognizable sequence, but checkpoints are implicit: there is no step to verify the fix worked (e.g., re-tab through the page with overlays open at zoom) and the testing conditions are described only loosely ('Test with cookie banners, chat widgets, and consent bars open', 'Re-test at zoomed and mobile layouts'). This sits at anchor 3 (validation gaps, checkpoints missing or implicit) rather than 4. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A well-organized overview with clearly sectioned content and a single, well-signaled, one-level-deep reference ('For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see references/rule.md') that exists in the bundle and holds the code examples. This matches the simple-skill pattern in the scoring notes: short body, clear sections, real and clearly signaled reference — anchor 5. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |