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.
A well-structured testing skill: six sequenced, executable Playwright checks with standards citations, a useful failure-to-fix anti-patterns table, and clean progressive disclosure into one real, well-scoped reference file. The main improvements are removing the duplicated W3C quote and making two weaker assertions (icon-mirror transform sniff, form cursor position) robust and concrete.
Suggestions
Remove the duplicated W3C 'Do not use CSS to apply base direction' quote — it appears verbatim in Step 1 and again in the anti-patterns table; cite it once and let the table reference Step 1.
Replace Step 3's brittle `expect(transform).toContain('-1')` with a robust mirroring check (e.g., asserting a mirrored asset/data attribute, or comparing bounding-box positions in LTR vs RTL runs), since the comment itself admits 'or use a different mirrored asset'.
Make Step 5's form-input check concrete: the comment 'assert via screenshot or computed-style direction' is unresolved — either assert the caret position via selectionStart/selectionEnd geometry or explicitly direct the reader to the per-locale screenshot check in references/rtl-checks.md.
| Dimension | Reasoning | Score |
|---|---|---|
Conciseness | The body is dominated by executable test code with short, purposeful standards citations rather than padding, but the W3C "Do not use CSS to apply base direction" quote is duplicated verbatim in Step 1 and the anti-patterns table, and the table restates each step's fix — minor trimmable redundancy fitting anchor 4 rather than the every-token-earns-its-place anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Actionability | Six mostly copy-paste-ready Playwright tests cover the common cases, but Step 3's `expect(transform).toContain('-1')` is brittle and self-acknowledges "or use a different mirrored asset", and Step 5's cursor check is left as "assert via screenshot or computed-style direction" while the actual assertion only covers text-align — minor gaps inside concrete code, matching anchor 4 rather than the fully-ready anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Workflow Clarity | Steps 1–6 are clearly sequenced and each step is itself an assertion-based checkpoint, with the anti-patterns table mapping failures to fixes; however there is no explicit "if this fails, fix and re-run" feedback loop (the table is a passive mapping), so it matches anchor 4 rather than anchor 5. | 4 / 5 |
Progressive Disclosure | Core checks are inline while supplementary material (per-locale visual regression, CI integration, dirname) is appropriately split into a single clearly-signaled, one-level-deep reference — references/rtl-checks.md, verified to exist and to contain exactly what Step 6 promises — matching the anchor for a clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references. | 5 / 5 |
Total | 17 / 20 Passed |