Content
71%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 a lean, well-organized overview that correctly pushes code examples and detailed guidance into a clearly signaled one-level-deep reference file. Its main weakness is actionability: the body itself contains no executable example or concrete how-to for finding and fixing invalid `headers` references, deferring all specifics to the reference.
Suggestions
Include a minimal good/bad markup snippet or a concrete detection method (e.g. 'every id in a td's headers list must exist on a th in the same table') directly in the Check or Fix section.
Specify how to determine 'the appropriate th IDs' when fixing — e.g. list the row/column header ids that govern the cell, space-separated in source order.
Make the workflow ordering explicit (e.g. number the Check/Fix/Verify steps) and add a re-check loop confirming the fixed attribute resolves to existing th ids.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The ~30-line body is lean with well-scoped sections; the only trimmable redundancy is that the Check section ("Verify that `td` headers attributes reference valid and existing `th` IDs") restates the Quick Reference bullet. Fits 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation' rather than the flawless 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Guidance is directive but not executable: no code, command, or selector appears in the body (the HTML example lives only in references/rule.md), and 'Correct the `headers` attribute to reference the appropriate `th` IDs' does not explain how to determine the appropriate ids. This matches 'some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details' — above 2 because the Quick Reference bullets do give concrete criteria (valid th id values, space-separated ids). | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sections form a coherent sequence, and the Code Review section supplies a verification checkpoint ('note how to verify the fix with browser accessibility tooling or assistive tech'). Not 5 because the ordering is implicit in section layout with no explicit re-check-after-fix loop; not 3 because most checkpoints are present. This is a review skill, not a destructive/batch operation, so the validation cap does not apply. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a clear overview that defers implementation details, code examples, and framework guidance to a single well-signaled reference: 'For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see `references/rule.md`' — a real, verified, one-level-deep file. This matches the 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references' anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |