Content
57%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A cleanly structured overview that defers detail to a real one-level reference file, but it spends tokens explaining mobile-browser basics Claude already knows and offers no executable code or explicit validation checkpoints in the body. The progressive disclosure is the strongest aspect; conciseness, actionability, and workflow clarity are each held at 2 by the padded intro and the lack of concrete code/feedback loops.
Suggestions
Cut or sharply compress the opening paragraph — drop the 55%-of-traffic stat and the explanation that mobile browsers/touch events differ from desktop; Claude already knows this, so lead with the actionable Quick Reference instead.
Add a short executable Playwright snippet (e.g., a projects entry using devices['iPhone 14']) in the Fix section so the guidance is copy-paste ready rather than a high-level instruction.
Make the review workflow explicit with a numbered Check → Verify-in-CI → Fix → Re-verify sequence, including a checkpoint confirming failures block regressions, so validation is not merely implicit.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The opening paragraph explains concepts Claude already knows ('Mobile browsers have different rendering engines...', 'real touch events that differ from mouse events') and pads with a 55%-of-traffic stat, which the guidelines explicitly penalize. It is not score 1 because the Quick Reference and Check/Fix/Code Review sections are reasonably tight, and not score 3 because that padded intro does not earn its tokens. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Gives concrete specifics — Playwright device presets, breakpoints 375px/390px/768px, BrowserStack — but the body contains no executable code or commands, and 'Add Playwright tests using mobile device presets to cover key user flows' is high-level rather than copy-paste ready. It is not score 3 (no fully executable examples in the body) and not score 1 (the tools and targets are specific, not vague). | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | The Check → Fix → Code Review sections imply a sequence, but there are no explicit validation checkpoints or a validate→fix→retry feedback loop; verification is only implicitly addressed by 'Flag exact gaps where the rule is not automatically verified'. It is not score 3 because checkpoints are implicit rather than explicit, and not score 1 because a recognizable sequence is present. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview with a well-signaled one-level-deep pointer — 'see references/rule.md' — and that referenced file exists and holds the code examples and framework guidance. This matches the score-3 anchor of a clear overview with appropriately split, easy-to-navigate references, unlike the score-2 case of inline content that should be separated. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 9 / 12 Passed |