Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A well-structured, actionable overview with good progressive disclosure via a single real reference file. The main weaknesses are redundancy between the Check and Code Review sections and the lack of explicit verification checkpoints in the body.
Suggestions
Merge the 'Check' and 'Code Review' sections — they repeat the same URL-pattern discovery and flag-page-2 logic — and keep one concise detection procedure.
Add an explicit verification step in the body (e.g., re-check the canonical tag after applying the fix, or confirm page 2+ is crawlable) rather than only delegating verification to references/rule.md.
Trim the 'Explain' section, which restates the indexing consequence already covered in the opening paragraph and Quick Reference.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient prose, but the 'Check' and 'Code Review' sections substantially overlap (both list the same URL patterns and flag-page-2-to-page-1 logic), and the 'Explain' section re-tells reasoning already implied — the body could be tightened by merging the redundant sections. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Provides specific URL patterns (?page=, /page/, /p/), a concrete copy-paste canonical tag in 'Fix', and precise flagging criteria, giving actionable guidance for this instruction-style audit skill. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Sections imply a Check → Fix sequence, but verification/validation checkpoints are absent from the body (delegated to the reference), so the workflow's checkpoints are implicit rather than explicit. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a tight overview that delegates full implementation details to a single, clearly signaled one-level-deep reference (references/rule.md, which exists), with well-organized sections for easy navigation. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |