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.
The body is well-structured and actionable, with a concrete check/fix procedure and a clean single-reference progressive-disclosure design. Its main weakness is redundancy between the intro, Quick Reference, and Explain sections, plus a generic templated Code Review section that adds little.
Suggestions
Merge the 'Explain' section into the intro or Quick Reference — the spec requirement, screen-reader announcement behavior, and `list-style: none` caveat are each stated twice.
Trim the generic 'Code Review' boilerplate ('Review the rendered markup and interactive states that affect...') to one concrete sentence about what to flag and how to verify with axe/Lighthouse or the browser accessibility tree.
Shorten the intro's screen-reader narration to one line; the per-screen-reader detail (NVDA, JAWS, VoiceOver) is context Claude already has and belongs in the reference file.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient, but the 'Explain' section re-states material already covered (spec requirement, screen-reader announcement behavior, the `list-style: none` caveat appears in both the intro and Explain), and the 'Code Review' section is templated filler ('Review the rendered markup and interactive states that affect...'). The intro also over-explains screen-reader behavior Claude largely knows. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | The Check section gives concrete, executable criteria ('check that its direct parent element is `<ul>`, `<ol>`, or `<menu>`; flag any `<li>` whose parent is `<div>`, `<section>`, `<nav>`, `<span>`') and the Fix section gives numbered, specific remedies. Minor gap: no code example inline (they live in references/rule.md), which is acceptable for an instruction-only skill. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sequence exists, and verification is mentioned ('note how to verify the fix with browser accessibility tooling or assistive tech'), but concrete verification steps are deferred to the reference file rather than stated as explicit checkpoints in the body — a minor validation gap. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a well-organized ~45-line overview with clear section headers, and it cleanly offloads implementation details to a single one-level-deep reference that exists ('For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see `references/rule.md` — verified present on disk). Navigation is easy and nothing is nested beyond one level. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |