Content
71%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.
The content is well-structured with a clear overview pointing to one level of reference detail and concrete review guidance. The main weakness is mild redundancy between the intro, Quick Reference, and Check sections.
Suggestions
Trim the regulatory-name-dropping in the intro (GDPR/CCPA/PIPEDA) since Claude already knows these; keep only the actionable requirement.
De-duplicate the retention/analytics disclosure points that appear in both 'Quick Reference' and 'Check' to reduce token cost.
Add an explicit validation checkpoint in 'Check' (e.g., re-run the footer scan after adding the link to confirm presence on all pages).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient, but the intro re-explains regulatory concepts (GDPR/CCPA/PIPEDA) Claude already knows and the 'Quick Reference' bullets overlap notably with the 'Check' paragraph (retention periods, analytics/logs/monitoring), so it could be tightened. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | The 'Check' and 'Fix' sections give concrete, specific instructions (verify the linked page contains contact info, data collected, user rights; ensure link on every page), which is actionable for an instruction-only skill with only minor gaps. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The 'Check' section sequences concrete verification steps (footer link → policy content → all pages → retention disclosures) with implicit verification, though it lacks an explicit validate-and-retry feedback loop. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a well-organized overview with clear sections and a single, well-signaled one-level-deep reference to references/rule.md (a real file) for full implementation details. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |