Content
70%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A well-structured, mostly lean accessibility review skill with a clear check→fix workflow and excellent progressive disclosure via a verified one-level reference. The main weaknesses are mild introductory prose redundancy and the absence of an inline executable code example in the body itself.
Suggestions
Trim the opening prose paragraph and the overlap between Quick Reference and Explain to reduce token redundancy.
Add a small inline CSS snippet in the Fix section (e.g., the underline approach) so the body is copy-paste ready without opening the reference.
Tighten the Code Review section with concrete element/state targets instead of generic phrasing like 'Flag exact elements, roles, labels'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient and assumes competence, but the opening prose ('universal, color-independent signal understood across cultures') and redundancy between Quick Reference and the Explain section could be tightened; not padded with basics, so above a 1. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, specific guidance — exact 3:1/4.5:1 thresholds, named CSS properties, and WCAG technique G183 — but the body itself lacks an inline executable code example and the Code Review section is somewhat generic; just short of fully copy-paste-ready. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The Check section sequences a clear find → inspect CSS → verify contrast → check hover/focus flow with an explicit verification checkpoint (contrast-ratio validation), which suits this single-purpose review skill. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | A well-organized overview body with a clearly signaled, verified one-level-deep reference ('see references/rule.md') that holds the detailed code examples, matching the clear-overview anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |