Content
43%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 well structured with excellent progressive disclosure to a real one-level-deep reference, but it reads as a concept overview rather than an operational skill. It spends tokens on WCAG basics Claude already knows while omitting the concrete tools, commands, and audit sequence that would make it actionable.
Suggestions
Add an executable audit workflow (e.g., run axe-core or Lighthouse via a specific command, then manually verify keyboard navigation and screen-reader output on flagged elements) with a clear step sequence and validation checkpoints, replacing the abstract 'Common Violations by Impact' tree.
Replace the vague 'Automate what you can - 30-50% issues detectable' with named tools and concrete invocations (axe DevTools, Lighthouse accessibility audit, WAVE) so Claude knows exactly what to run.
Move the WCAG conformance-level table and POUR principles — knowledge Claude already has — into references/details.md or cut them, freeing the body for remediation patterns with concrete code examples (e.g., accessible label/markup fixes).
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The "WCAG Conformance Levels" table and the "POUR Principles" block re-explain standard WCAG knowledge Claude already has, and the "Common Violations by Impact" tree is largely known territory too. The body is short and mostly efficient, but these sections could be trimmed or pushed to references, matching the "mostly efficient with some unnecessary explanation" anchor rather than the lean anchor. | 3 / 5 |
Actionability | The guidance stays descriptive: "Automate what you can - 30-50% issues detectable" names no tool (no axe-core, Lighthouse, or WAVE command), and there is no code, command, or concrete procedure for conducting an audit anywhere in the body. It is not entirely abstract (it cites specific violations like "Don't disable zoom"), placing it between the vague and minimal-concrete anchors, closer to the latter. | 2 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | An accessibility audit is a multi-step process, but the body provides no sequence at all (no run-automated-tools, review-results, manual-keyboard/screen-reader-test, report steps) and no validation checkpoints. Rough topic organization exists, but audit steps are absent rather than merely gappy, which sits at the "poorly defined steps" anchor and clearly below the "steps listed with validation gaps" anchor. | 2 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | The body is an overview with a single, clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference — "Detailed pattern documentation lives in `references/details.md`. Read that file when the navigation tier above is insufficient" — and that file exists in the bundle with substantive detail. The conditional read instruction and clean split match the top anchor. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 12 / 20 Passed |