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 well-structured and token-efficient, presenting a clear review workflow (Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review) with actionable before/after examples and a clean one-level pointer to references/rule.md for code and framework detail. Its only real weakness is minor repetition of the sensory-cue framing between the intro and Explain sections.
Suggestions
Remove the near-duplicate sensory-cue sentence from the Explain section since it restates the intro verbatim.
Add one short inline before/after markup snippet in the Fix section so the most common fix is visible without opening the reference.
Make the verification checkpoint explicit in the Code Review section (e.g. 'Run axe/Lighthouse; then navigate with a screen reader to confirm').
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean with short sections and bullets and assumes Claude's domain knowledge, but the opening sensory-cue sentence is repeated near-verbatim in the Explain section, a minor redundancy. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Gives concrete, actionable guidance with before/after examples ('Instead of click the green button, use click the Submit button (green)') and specific items to flag; code examples live in the reference file, which is acceptable for an instruction-only skill. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A coherent review sequence is present (Check -> Fix -> Explain -> Code Review) with verification guidance ('verify the fix with browser accessibility tooling or assistive tech'), though checkpoints are implicit rather than enumerated. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview that clearly signals a single one-level-deep reference ('see references/rule.md') for full implementation details, code examples, and framework guidance; the referenced file exists and holds the detail. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |