Content
86%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 concise, well-structured, and uses progressive disclosure effectively via a real one-level reference file. It could be slightly more actionable and its review workflow more explicit by inlining a minimal HTML example and a validate-fix-retry checkpoint.
Suggestions
Inline a minimal `headers`/`<th id>` HTML snippet in the body so reviewers have a copy-paste reference without opening references/rule.md.
Add an explicit validate-then-retry checkpoint to the Code Review section (e.g., re-run the accessibility checker and confirm the violation is gone before considering the fix complete).
State the specific verification command or tool (e.g., 'Run axe DevTools on the table') rather than the generic 'browser accessibility tooling'.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean bullets and short imperatives with no padding or over-explanation of known concepts; nearly every token earns its place. | 5 / 5 |
Actionability | Quick Reference gives concrete rules (use the `headers` attribute, reference valid `th` IDs, space-separate IDs) and Check/Fix/Explain are specific, but no executable inline code example — the HTML pattern is deferred to references/rule.md. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Quick Reference → Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sequence is clear and includes verification guidance ('verify the fix with browser accessibility tooling or assistive tech'), though it lacks an explicit validate-then-retry loop. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | A clear overview in SKILL.md with a well-signaled one-level-deep pointer to references/rule.md (verified to exist and contain the full implementation), with content appropriately split. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |