Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
A clean, well-structured overview that defers detail to a single reference file; it is actionable but slightly padded with concepts Claude already knows and lacks an explicit verification checkpoint.
Suggestions
Trim the restated screen-reader explanation in the intro and 'Explain' sections, since Claude already knows how list semantics are announced.
Add an explicit verify step (e.g., confirm 'list with X items' announcement via axe or a screen reader) to turn the review lenses into a sequenced, checkpointed workflow.
Replace the repeated boilerplate 'Use semantic list elements' phrasing with tighter, direct instructions.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | Mostly efficient, but the intro and 'Explain' section restate the screen-reader announcement concept Claude already knows, and 'Use semantic list elements' is repeated as templated filler. | 2 / 3 |
Actionability | Gives concrete element-level guidance — 'Use ul/ol/dl', 'Use li', 'proper dt/dd' — which is specific and directly actionable for an instruction-only skill. | 3 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review read as parallel review lenses rather than a sequenced process, and there are no explicit validation checkpoints between steps. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | A concise overview with well-signaled, one-level-deep pointer to the verified 'references/rule.md' for implementation details and examples. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |