Content
63%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 well-structured and uses progressive disclosure correctly — a lean overview pointing to a real, one-level-deep reference file. However, the four near-duplicate Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections pad the content without adding executable detail, and no code example or explicit verification step appears in SKILL.md itself.
Suggestions
Consolidate the Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections, which restate the same guidance four ways, into one concise workflow section.
Inline a minimal before/after example (e.g., an onclick button converted to addEventListener) so the fix is executable without opening the reference file.
Add an explicit verification step, such as confirming no inline handlers remain in the rendered HTML and that the page still works with CSP enforced.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is short and doesn't explain concepts Claude already knows, but the Check, Fix, Explain, and Code Review sections each restate essentially the same guidance ("move inline JavaScript to external files") in four different ways, and the intro sentence duplicates the "Why It Matters" text in references/rule.md. This is more than the minor trimmable padding of anchor 4, fitting anchor 3 (mostly efficient but could be tightened). | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | The Quick Reference gives some concrete direction ("Use addEventListener instead of inline event handlers", "Exception: critical above-the-fold JS can be inlined"), but the Check/Fix sections are high-level directives ("implement proper event handling, and use modern JavaScript patterns") with no inline example or specific steps, delegating all code examples to references/rule.md. This lands between anchor 2 (minimal concrete guidance) and anchor 4 (mostly executable), so anchor 3 with key details missing. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The section order (Quick Reference → Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review) implies a coherent review-then-fix sequence for this single-purpose skill, and the Code Review section requires stating "how the change should be verified in the browser". Not anchor 5 because the checkpoints are implicit — no explicit validation step (e.g., re-check the page, confirm CSP headers pass) is spelled out — but the sequence is clear with only minor gaps, matching anchor 4. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The SKILL.md is a concise, well-sectioned overview that clearly signals a single one-level-deep reference ("For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see `references/rule.md`"), and that file exists with no further nested skill references. This matches anchor 5: clear overview, well-signaled one-level-deep references, easy navigation. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |