Content
78%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 well-structured, concise overview with a clear audit workflow and exemplary progressive disclosure — implementation detail is properly split into references/rule.md, which exists and matches what the body promises. The main gaps are minor: a redundant why-it-matters opening line duplicated from the reference, and the absence of an explicit re-verification step after applying fixes.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean — short bulleted Quick Reference, terse Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections — and mostly assumes Claude's competence. It loses a point because the opening line ("robots.txt is the first file crawlers fetch; misconfigured directives can silently block...") is a why-it-matters explanation Claude already knows and duplicates the same sentence verbatim in references/rule.md. Not score 3, since this is the only instance of padding and everything else earns its place; not score 5 because that duplicated motivational line could be cut. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete and checkable: "Fetch /robots.txt on the live domain and verify it returns HTTP 200", "Add a live Sitemap: line", "Remove any Disallow: / rules that block the whole site". Per the instruction-skill scoring note, missing code is not penalized since the guidance is actionable and the example robots.txt lives in references/rule.md, which is cleanly signaled. Not score 5 because no executable command (e.g. `curl -I`) or example directive block is inline — the concrete artifacts are one hop away in the reference. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sequence is clear and ordered, with the Check section acting as an explicit validation checkpoint (HTTP 200, syntax, accidental `Disallow: /`) and Code Review requiring the user to "describe how to verify the final page output". Not score 5 because the fix→re-verify loop is implicit — nothing tells Claude to re-run the Check after editing robots.txt — leaving a minor checkpoint gap typical of anchor 4. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a short, well-sectioned overview that correctly pushes implementation details, code examples, and framework guidance to references/rule.md — a verified real file exactly one level deep, pointed to with an explicit "see `references/rule.md`" callout. This matches the anchor for a clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references and easy navigation. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |