Content
85%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is a well-structured, actionable overview that defers detail to a real one-level reference and gives exact numeric guidance. Its main weakness is mild verbosity and redundancy (the Explain section and overlapping Check/Code Review content).
Suggestions
Tighten the 'Explain' section or merge it with the intro, since it restates social-platform cropping behavior Claude already knows.
De-duplicate the Check and Code Review sections, which repeat the same dimension/size/URL criteria.
Consider trimming the Quick Reference bullets that simply restate thresholds already detailed in the Check and Fix sections.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly tight with concrete thresholds, but the 'Explain' section restates social-platform behavior Claude already knows and Quick Reference/Check/Code Review overlap, so it is efficient with some unnecessary explanation that could be trimmed. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides concrete, specific, copy-ready guidance: exact dimensions (1200×630, 600×315), aspect ratio 1.91:1, file-size limits (5 MB / 1 MB), JPEG 80–85%, absolute HTTPS URLs, and og:image:width/height tags. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear Check→Flag→Fix sequence with explicit flagging conditions; the task is a non-destructive audit so the absence of a destructive-operation validation loop does not cap the score. | 3 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview with a single, clearly signaled one-level-deep reference to references/rule.md (a real file) plus the source rule page, with content appropriately split. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 11 / 12 Passed |