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 well-structured rule document: the Check section is a concrete five-point inspection with an explicit flagging criterion, Fix gives specific ARIA and layout alternatives, and details are correctly deferred to a single clearly-signaled reference file. The main weakness is redundancy — Quick Reference, Fix, and Explain repeat the same exemptions, WCAG citations, and dismissal requirements — which inflates token cost without adding guidance value.
Suggestions
Consolidate duplicated material: state the acceptable-interstitial exemptions, WCAG SC citations, and Escape/focus-return requirements once (Quick Reference or Explain, not both) to tighten conciseness.
Cut or compress the intro paragraph's general accessibility explanation (screen reader and focus-trap basics Claude already knows), keeping only the rule-specific impact facts (mobile users, Google ranking penalty).
Merge the "Code Review" section into "Check" (they describe the same flag-the-violation workflow) and add an explicit verification step, e.g. confirming each flagged element fails a named check before reporting it.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient, but there is real duplication an editor would cut: acceptable interstitials appear in both Quick Reference ("age verification, legally required notices... login walls") and Explain ("Exempt are legally required notices, age verification, and login walls"); WCAG SC 2.1.2 is cited in Quick Reference and again in Explain; Escape-key/focus-return rules appear in Quick Reference, Fix, and Explain. The intro also re-explains standard accessibility concepts (focus trapping, screen readers) Claude already knows. This fits the 3 anchor (some unnecessary explanation, could be tightened) rather than the 4 anchor (only minor trims needed). | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete and executable for an instruction-only review skill: Check gives five specific pass/fail criteria ("Does it cover more than a small portion of the main content on mobile screens (< 600px width)?", "dismissed by pressing the Escape key"), and Fix names exact replacements and ARIA attributes ("`role='dialog'`, `aria-modal='true'`, `aria-labelledby`", "sticky banners... max-height 10-15% of viewport"). It stops short of fully copy-paste-ready snippets (no CSS/HTML example for the sticky-banner alternative or focus trap), and specifics are deferred to the reference, so it matches the 4 anchor (mostly executable, minor gaps) rather than the 5 anchor. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The review workflow is clearly sequenced: identify candidate elements ("`position: fixed` or `position: absolute` with high `z-index`"), run the five numbered checks, and "Flag dialogs that fail any of these checks" gives an explicit decision criterion; Fix is likewise numbered. This is above the implicit-checkpoint 3 anchor. It falls short of the 5 anchor because the closing "Code Review" section is partially redundant with Check and somewhat vague ("Flag exact selectors... that violate the rule in the rendered UI") without a validation or verification pass for the flags. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a well-organized overview (Quick Reference, Check, Fix, Explain) with a clearly signaled, one-level-deep pointer to a real bundle file: "For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see `references/rule.md`" — and `references/rule.md` exists in the bundle with no further nested references. This matches the 5 anchor (clear overview, well-signaled one-level-deep references) exactly. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |