Content
78%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 well-structured, token-efficient audit workflow with a genuinely actionable checklist and exemplary progressive disclosure to one real reference file. Its main gaps are mild redundancy in the Quick Reference bullets and a verification step that is delegated rather than specified.
Suggestions
Make the Code Review verification concrete — e.g. "render the checkout/contact route and confirm each trust badge area shows a genuine, linkable credential" instead of "describe how to verify the final page output".
Trim the Quick Reference bullets that restate the intro (the YMYL/Quality Rater Guidelines point appears twice) to save tokens.
Name one or two concrete placement examples inline (e.g. review widget near the pricing CTA, SSL badge adjacent to the form submit button) so placement guidance doesn't depend on the reference file.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is lean (~30 lines) with distinct Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections and no padding or explanation of basics Claude already knows. Minor tightening possible: the Quick Reference bullets partly repeat the intro sentence and the Check section (YMYL/QRG points stated twice). | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | The Check section gives a concrete inspection list ("security/SSL badges near forms, third-party review platform ratings (Google, Trustpilot), industry certifications, client/partner logos, testimonials with names and photos, money-back guarantee language") and Fix names specific implementations (embed real review widgets, verifiable certification links). Not a 5 because "describe how to verify the final page output" delegates verification without giving the method. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review is a coherent, well-sequenced audit workflow, and the skill is single-purpose (no destructive/batch operations, so no validation cap applies). It falls short of 5 because the verification checkpoint in Code Review is left as an instruction to "describe how to verify" rather than an explicit step (e.g. render the route and inspect the badge area). | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is a concise overview with well-organized sections and a single clearly signaled one-level-deep pointer: "For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see `references/rule.md`" — and references/rule.md exists and delivers exactly those code examples. Content is appropriately split for an audit rule. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |