Content
68%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 body is a lean, well-sectioned overview that appropriately defers implementation detail to references/rule.md, with specific executable directives in the Check and Fix sections. Its main weaknesses are the verbatim duplication of the reference file's rationale and the absence of any verification step in the body, even though one exists in the reference.
Suggestions
Add a brief verification step after Fix (e.g. "Verify: confirm computed styles in DevTools at one mobile and one desktop viewport — see references/rule.md#verification") to close the workflow gap.
Drop or drastically shorten the opening accessibility rationale, since it duplicates references/rule.md's "Why It Matters" verbatim and restates what Claude already knows.
Include the one-line conversion rule (px ÷ root font size = rem, e.g. 16px → 1rem) in the Fix section so the core transformation is executable without hopping to the reference.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly lean: terse Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review directives and a compact Quick Reference where every line earns its place. Not 5 because the opening accessibility rationale ("Fixed pixel values override user browser preferences, making your site inaccessible...") explains a concept Claude already knows and duplicates references/rule.md's "Why It Matters" verbatim. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete executable directives: "Find all px-based font-size, width, and padding values in this CSS file" and "Convert fixed px font sizes to rem equivalents", plus a Quick Reference mapping each unit to its use case. Not 5 because the body includes no detection method or conversion example — those details are one hop away in references/rule.md; not 3 because the guidance is more complete and specific than pseudocode-level hints. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sections imply a coherent sequence, but the body contains no verification checkpoint — the rendered-layout validation mentioned in the description and rule.md's Verification section are never surfaced in the body. Not 4 because validation is absent rather than a minor gap; not 2 because the sections do define a rough, understandable sequence. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Clear sectioned overview with a well-signaled one-level-deep pointer to references/rule.md (a real file), plus the source rule URL. Not 5 because the opening rationale paragraph duplicates rule.md's "Why It Matters" verbatim, so the split between overview and reference is not perfectly clean; not 3 because structure and navigation are solid. | 4 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |