Content
72%Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.
The body is concise and well-structured with clean one-level progressive disclosure to a real reference file, but it stays at an abstract review level with no inline executable examples or validation checkpoints.
Suggestions
Add one small inline code snippet (a <caption> and aria-label example) so the Fix step is immediately actionable without opening the reference.
Include an explicit verification checkpoint (e.g., inspect the accessibility tree / run axe) in the Check or Fix section to cap the workflow at a confirmed pass.
Make the Check/Fix steps concrete commands or tool calls rather than imperative prose like 'Verify that every table has a unique accessible name'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean (a few short sections, no padding, no explaining of concepts Claude already knows), with every line earning its place and detail correctly deferred to references/rule.md. | 3 / 3 |
Actionability | Guidance is concrete in direction ('Add a unique <caption> or aria-label') but the body lacks executable code or copy-paste examples; the only code lives in the deferred reference file rather than the SKILL.md itself. | 2 / 3 |
Workflow Clarity | Sections (Quick Reference, Check, Fix, Explain, Code Review) give a usable sequence, but there is no explicit validation/checkpoint for confirming the fix holds in the rendered experience, which the rubric expects for review-oriented skills. | 2 / 3 |
Progressive Disclosure | A clear overview with a single well-signaled one-level-deep reference ('see references/rule.md'), and the referenced file exists and holds the detailed examples and verification steps, matching the score-3 anchor. | 3 / 3 |
Total | 10 / 12 Passed |