Content
53%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 reasonably structured overview that defers detail to a single, clearly signaled reference file. It is held back by a motivational intro, no inline markup examples, and no explicit validation step in the body itself.
Suggestions
Trim or remove the opening paragraph explaining browser parsing/FOIT, since Claude already understands these concepts.
Add one small inline preload/preconnect markup snippet so the Check/Fix steps are immediately executable without opening the reference.
Insert an explicit verification checkpoint (e.g. "Confirm rendered HTML contains the hint and re-check shared components emitting the same markup") into the body workflow.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean (tight Quick Reference bullets and brief Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review directives), but the opening paragraph re-explains browser parsing and FOIT motivation that Claude already knows. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete in places ("fonts referenced in CSS, hero images, and key scripts", "Flag exact elements, attributes, and routes") but the body lacks any executable markup examples, leaving key details in the reference file. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A loose Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sequence is present, but there are no explicit validation/verification checkpoints in the body (those live only in references/rule.md), which caps the score. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview with a clearly signaled one-level-deep pointer ("see references/rule.md"), and the referenced file exists; minor duplication of the "Why It Matters" content between body and reference. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 13 / 20 Passed |