Content
57%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A well-structured overview that correctly pushes implementation detail into a single one-level-deep reference. It is held back by minor internal redundancy and by deferring the executable commands, validation steps, and feedback loop to the reference without summarizing them inline.
Suggestions
Inline at least one executable check (e.g. the grep for `src="http://` / `url(http://`) and the CSP header value so the body is self-sufficient for the common case.
Add an explicit verification checkpoint in the body (confirm the response/header is enforced in a production-like environment) rather than only implying it in Code Review.
Deduplicate the upgrade-insecure-requests guidance — consolidate Quick Reference bullets 3 and 5 and avoid restating it in both Check and Fix.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly lean and assumes competence, but upgrade-insecure-requests is restated across Quick Reference, Check, and Fix, and bullets 3 and 5 overlap, so it could be tightened. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Guidance names concrete targets (script/img/link/iframe src attributes, the CSP directive) but the executable commands and configs live in references/rule.md rather than inline, leaving the body's instructions somewhat incomplete. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sequence is clear, but validation checkpoints are only implicit ("verify them against the effective production-like response") and the explicit validate-fix-retry loop is deferred to the reference. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview with a single, clearly signaled one-level-deep pointer to references/rule.md (a real file), matching the well-signaled-reference anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |