Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The content is concise, well-structured, and uses progressive disclosure cleanly with a real one-level reference. It loses points on actionability and workflow clarity because the body lacks executable examples and explicit verification steps for the search-facing output it governs.
Suggestions
Add a minimal inline JSON-LD `areaServed` snippet so the body is self-contained and copy-paste ready.
Insert an explicit verification step (e.g., validate the page with the Rich Results Test / check structured data renders) in the Check or Fix flow.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean and sectioned (Quick Reference, Check, Fix, Explain, Code Review) with no padding or restating of concepts Claude already knows; every line is task-relevant. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | It gives concrete specifics ('at least 300 words of unique content', `LocalBusiness` schema with `areaServed`, `[Service] in [City]` titles), but the body itself offers no executable code or schema example — the actual JSON-LD is deferred to references. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | A clear Check→Fix→Explain→Code Review sequence exists, but there is no explicit validation or verification checkpoint for confirming rendered output or structured-data validity, which the rubric caps at 2 for fragile search-facing output. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview with a single, clearly signaled one-level reference to the real `references/rule.md`, and sections are well organized for easy navigation. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |