Content
87%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is lean, well-organized, and properly delegates detail to a single real reference file. The main gap is the absence of an explicit validation/verification checkpoint within the body itself for the audit workflow.
Suggestions
Add an explicit 'Verify' step in the body (e.g., re-crawl affected URLs after the fix and confirm no 'nosnippet'/'max-snippet:0' remains) rather than relying solely on references/rule.md for verification.
Include one executable detection snippet in the Check section (e.g., a grep/curl command over rendered HTML and X-Robots-Tag headers) so the audit step is copy-paste runnable.
Trim the 'Explain' section, which restates the Quick Reference, to reduce token overlap.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Tight bulleted sections (Quick Reference, Check, Fix, Explain, Code Review) with no padding or explanation of basic SEO concepts Claude already knows; the slight overlap between Explain and Quick Reference does not rise to verbosity. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Concrete detection targets ('nosnippet', 'max-snippet:0', X-Robots-Tag header) and a specific remediation ('Replace with max-snippet:-1') give copy-applicable, actionable guidance; being instruction-only is not penalized since the guidance is specific. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review provide a sequence, but the body has no explicit verification checkpoint (the verify loop lives only in references/rule.md), leaving validation implicit for a batch audit. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview with a clearly signaled, one-level-deep pointer ('see references/rule.md'), and that referenced bundle file exists, matching the ideal overview-plus-reference structure. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |