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 lean, well-structured review skill body with clean progressive disclosure to references/rule.md and a clear check→fix workflow. Its weakness is redundancy: the Quick Reference bullets are paraphrased twice more in the Check and Fix sections, and verification lacks an explicit validate→fix→retry loop.
Suggestions
Collapse the overlap between Quick Reference, Check, and Fix — state each rule (tabindex, positive values, hidden content, modal traps) once, keeping Quick Reference as the canonical bullet list and letting Check/Fix reference it rather than restate it.
Make verification an explicit checkpoint: add a short 'Verify' step naming the concrete procedure (e.g., the automated and manual checks detailed in references/rule.md) and what to do when a check fails, mirroring the reference's Verification section.
In the Code Review section, replace the general 'browser accessibility tooling' phrasing with one or two named tools or techniques (e.g., tab-through walkthrough, focus inspector) so the verification instruction is directly executable.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The Quick Reference bullets are restated nearly verbatim in both the 'Check' and 'Fix' sections ('Never use positive tabindex values' reappears as 'Avoid positive tabindex values'; the tabindex='-1' rule appears twice). The redundancy across three sections could be collapsed, though there is no concept-teaching padding. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete prescriptions are present ('tabindex=\'-1\'', 'working Escape path', 'Avoid positive tabindex values') and the review sequence is specific. Code examples and test commands are deferred to references/rule.md rather than inlined, leaving minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear ordered sequence exists ('Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output') with Check→Fix→Explain→Code Review phases, and the Code Review section directs verifying the fix with accessibility tooling. Verification is mentioned but not framed as an explicit checkpoint with a feedback loop. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview with a single well-signaled, one-level-deep reference ('For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see references/rule.md'), which exists in the bundle and contains no nested references. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |