Content
86%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 well-structured, highly actionable skill: a complete gate script, real one-level-deep reference file, and a numbered baseline-maintenance workflow with an anti-patterns table. The main gains available are trimming the repeated ratchet/fingerprint explanations and making a couple of validation checkpoints explicit (verifying regenerated baselines, confirming fingerprint removals).
Suggestions
State the ratchet/fingerprint rationale once (Step 1) and drop its restatements in the Overview and Step 3 prose to save tokens.
Add an explicit verification step after regenerating a debated baseline: re-run the gate to confirm it passes before merging.
In Step 5 item 3, pair the 'manually remove the fingerprint' instruction with a check (e.g., grep the baseline for the removed fingerprint) so stale entries are caught immediately.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dense and mostly earns its tokens: it never explains what WCAG or CI is, and the code, baseline JSON, and severity table are all load-bearing. Not 5: there is repetition — the ratchet rationale is stated in the Overview and again in Step 2's framing, the fingerprint semantics are explained in Step 1 and restated in Step 3's prose and in the reference file, and phrases like 'the baseline is shared state - careful coordination prevents bit rot' add little. Not 3: these are minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed, not padded sections. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | A fully executable Python gate script (fingerprint construction, baseline loading, severity tiering, non-zero exit on no-go), a concrete unified-record JSON schema, a baseline file example, a severity-tier decision table, and scanner output shapes plus a ready PR-artifact template in references/gate-implementation.md. Copy-paste ready and covers the common case (axe-core) with an explicit extension path for the other scanners. Not 4: no significant execution details are missing. | 5 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1-5 are clearly sequenced and the gate's no-go/exit-non-zero is itself a validation checkpoint, with a recovery loop in Step 5 item 2 (gate fails -> fix or debate and regenerate baseline). Not 5: checkpoints are implicit rather than explicit in places — no step verifies a regenerated baseline before merging, no dry-run/test of the gate itself, and the destructive 'manually remove the fingerprint' instruction in Step 5 item 3 has no verification that the removal was done correctly. Not 3: sequence and feedback loops are present, so the missing-validation cap does not apply. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | SKILL.md keeps the load-bearing core (unified record, baseline format, gate decision, runnable axe-core script) inline and moves the other four scanners' shapes and the full PR-artifact template to references/gate-implementation.md, which exists and is referenced three times with clear signals ('Per-scanner output shapes and field mappings are in [references/gate-implementation.md]'). The reference is exactly one level deep (verified: it contains no nested references). Not 4: the split is clean with no inlined content that belongs in the reference file. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 18 / 20 Passed |