Content
72%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.
Well-structured and appropriately split across one-level-deep reference files, with executable code patterns and a clear coverage priority. The main gap is the absence of an explicit testing workflow with pass/fail validation checkpoints in the body, and a sizable share of tokens spent on generic implementation code rather than testing procedure.
Suggestions
Add an explicit numbered end-to-end testing workflow with checkpoints, e.g.: 1) keyboard-only pass, 2) browse-mode reading pass, 3) focus-mode interaction pass, 4) verify dynamic announcements, 5) record failures with expected vs. actual output.
For each 'Common Test Scenario', state the expected screen-reader announcement (e.g. 'dialog announced as "Confirm Delete, dialog"') so results can be validated as pass/fail rather than left to judgment.
Trim or move the generic implementation code (modal focus trap, tab keyboard navigation) that Claude already knows into a reference file, keeping only the screen-reader-specific testing perspective inline.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is mostly dense tables, terse bullets, and executable code with no prose padding — efficient. Not 5 because a large share of tokens (~130 lines) goes to generic accessible-implementation patterns (modal focus trap, tab keyboard nav) that Claude already knows and that aren't screen-reader-testing-specific, and the Do's/Don'ts partially repeat the 'When to Use' list; not 3 because there are only minor instances of over-explanation, not several padded sections. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Concrete, mostly copy-paste-ready material: the modal focus-trap and live-region markup, the tab keydown handler, the logAccessibleName() debug function, and the coverage-priority list. Not 5 because of minor gaps — the tab handler calls an undefined activateTab(), trapFocus relies on implicit globals, and the actual screen-reader operating steps live entirely in the reference files; not 3 because the guidance given is executable, not pseudocode or vague direction. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Some sequencing exists — the Minimum/Comprehensive coverage list and per-platform gating ("Before testing with NVDA, read references/nvda.md") — but there is no explicit end-to-end testing procedure in the body and no validation checkpoints or pass/fail criteria; checkpoints are missing or implicit. Not 4 because the reference-gated ordering alone doesn't constitute 'most checkpoints present'; above 2 because a real, coherent sequence of coverage priorities and per-platform steps is stated. | 3 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | SKILL.md reads as an overview (concepts, priorities, common scenarios) with four well-signaled, descriptively labeled references (e.g. "[NVDA setup, modes, commands, and test scripts](references/nvda.md)"). All four referenced files exist in references/ and contain no nested references, so the structure is one level deep and easy to navigate — a clear match to the anchor-5 example; the scattered placement of the pointers is at most a stylistic quibble, not a 4-level gap. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 16 / 20 Passed |