Content
65%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.
A lean, well-organized overview body with excellent progressive disclosure to a real, one-level-deep reference file. Its weaknesses are in-body actionability and workflow clarity: the Check/Fix guidance states what to verify but not how (no association mechanics, selectors, or examples in the body), and verification checkpoints are only implied rather than stated as explicit steps.
Suggestions
Add the concrete association mechanics to the Check section — e.g., verify `scope` attributes and `headers`/`id` pairs, or inline one compact GOOD/BAD `<th>` markup snippet — so the check is executable before opening the reference file.
Make verification an explicit workflow step (e.g., 'After fixing, re-run axe or inspect the accessibility tree to confirm no orphaned headers remain') instead of the implicit 'note how to verify the fix' aside.
Trim redundancy: merge the overlapping Quick Reference bullets and Check/Fix one-liners (e.g., 'Avoid empty headers' vs 'Remove unnecessary headers') and drop or shorten the Code Review section that repeats the description's generic review procedure.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is short (~30 lines), assumes Claude's competence, and explains no background concepts. Minor trimming is possible: the Quick Reference bullets overlap Check/Fix ("Avoid empty headers that don't describe any data" vs "Remove unnecessary headers"), and the Code Review section largely restates the description's generic review procedure — efficient with minor instances that could be tightened, matching level 4 rather than the every-token-earns-its-place of level 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The Quick Reference bullets state concrete criteria ("Every `<th>` must be associated with one or more `<td>` cells", "Avoid empty headers"), which lifts it above level 2's high-level-hints-only profile. But the body gives no how: "Verify that all `<th>` elements are correctly associated with data cells" and "ensure they are correctly mapped to data cells" never specify what correct association looks like (scope attributes, headers/id pairs) or how to detect it, and all executable examples are delegated to references/rule.md — some concrete guidance but incomplete, matching level 3. | 3 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | A rough sequence is present (Quick Reference → Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review), above level 2's poorly-defined steps. But validation checkpoints are only implicit: "note how to verify the fix with browser accessibility tooling or assistive tech" mentions verification without any in-body checkpoint, and the actual verification steps live in references/rule.md — steps listed with validation gaps, matching level 3. The destructive/batch cap does not apply (this is a review skill), but the simple-skill exception for 5 does not apply either since the correct-association method is left unspecified. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a clear overview with the single bundle file well signaled and exactly one level deep: "For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see `references/rule.md`" — and that file exists and contains no further nested references. The split is appropriate (criteria in SKILL.md; examples, rationale, exceptions, and verification in rule.md), matching the level-5 anchor for clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 15 / 20 Passed |