Content
72%Weight 40%Scale 1-5Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A well-structured, concise review skill with good progressive disclosure and actionable inspection/remediation guidance. The main gap is workflow clarity: verification is gestured at but not framed as an explicit validate→fix→retry checkpoint loop.
Suggestions
Add an explicit validation checkpoint to the Check/Fix flow—e.g., 'After fixing, re-scan all <picture> elements and confirm in DevTools Network panel that the expected AVIF/WebP source is selected'—to form a validate→fix→retry loop.
De-duplicate the IE11/no-<img> fallback fact between the intro and Explain sections to tighten token use.
Include one inline copy-paste-ready <picture> example in the body (or a minimal Bad/Good pair) so the most common case is actionable without opening references/rule.md.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Lean body with a useful intro, terse quick-reference bullets, and sectioned Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review guidance; the only redundancy is the IE11/no-<img> fact restated in both the intro and Explain sections. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | 'Check' provides a concrete numbered inspection list and 'Fix' gives a remediation template ('<img src="{fallback-url}" alt="{description}" width="{w}" height="{h}">'), but the body uses placeholders and defers literal code to references. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear Check→Fix→Explain→Code Review sequence exists, but validation checkpoints are only implicit ('Flag any <picture> missing...', 'confirm the fix in DevTools') with no explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop in the body. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Concise overview with well-organized sections and a single, clearly signaled one-level-deep pointer to the existing references/rule.md, which matches the bundle structure on disk. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |