Content
57%Reviews 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 with good progressive disclosure to a real reference file, but it spends tokens explaining concepts Claude already knows and keeps verification guidance implicit. Inlining a concrete check command and trimming redundant rationale would lift the weaker dimensions.
Suggestions
Remove or condense the intro and "Explain" rationale about why heading order matters, since Claude already knows this.
Add an explicit verification checkpoint (e.g. "Run axe/Lighthouse or inspect the accessibility tree and confirm no skipped levels remain") instead of a vague note to verify.
Inline one concrete check snippet or selector for skipped headings so the body is actionable without requiring the reference.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The intro and "Explain" sections restate why heading order matters — a concept Claude already knows — and "Quick Reference" overlaps with "Check", so the body is mostly efficient but carries unnecessary explanation. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete inline examples appear ("change an <h3> to an <h2> if it follows an <h1>"), but the executable HTML examples live in references/rule.md rather than the body, leaving the guidance high-level rather than copy-paste ready. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear Check→Fix→Explain→Code Review sequence is present, but verification is only vaguely referenced ("note how to verify the fix with browser accessibility tooling") rather than given as explicit checkpoints. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a well-organized overview (Quick Reference, Check, Fix, Explain, Code Review) with a single clearly-signaled one-level-deep reference to references/rule.md, which exists, matching the clear-overview anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |