Improve Rule

Improve a Front-End Checklist Rule

This skill helps you review and improve the quality of rule MDX files in the Front-End Checklist project. Use it to fix stub content, write better AI prompts, and enrich rules so they score well against the quality rubric.

Quality Dimensions

Every rule is scored across these dimensions (see references/scoring-rubric.md for full details):

Base score: 100 with additional conditional V2 points. Target: ≥ 50 (passing).

Stub Prompts — What to Avoid

These patterns are automatically detected as low-quality:

• "Verify if the project adheres to: [Rule Title]"
• "Update the codebase to align with: [Rule Title]"
• "Explain the importance of [Rule Title]"

Replace them with specific, actionable instructions that name the exact HTML attributes, CSS properties, or JavaScript patterns involved.

Check

Run the quality scorer on a specific rule to see its current score:

pnpm score:rules packages/content/rules/en/{category}/{slug}.mdx

Then open the MDX file and identify which dimensions are failing.

Run the structure validator as well:

pnpm validate:rule-structure packages/content/rules/en/{category}/{slug}.mdx

The rule body must follow this order:

• intro paragraph before any H2
• ## Code Example or ## Code Examples
• ## Why It Matters
• optional guidance sections
• final ## Verification

Rule Contract V2 adds conditional sections:

• ## Exceptions for false positives, caveats, or valid exceptions
• ### Automated Checks and ### Manual Checks inside ## Verification when both matter
• ## Browser Support, ## Support Notes, or ## Standards when compatibility or compliance changes implementation decisions

Use the repo browser policy plus package-backed compatibility data for browser-support notes. Do not guess support ranges from memory.

Fix

When improving a rule:

1. Fix stub prompts first — they have the highest point value (30 pts combined)

   • check: name the exact attributes/patterns to audit
   • fix: give step-by-step remediation with code snippets
   • explain: explain the user impact, not just the technical detail

2. Add aiContext — one sentence: "Applies to any HTML page with [X]" or "Use when reviewing [Y] in [Z] context"

3. Add/expand tldr — 3 bullets minimum, each ending with a concrete rule of thumb

4. Enrich body content — add ✅ good example and ❌ bad example code blocks for each concept

5. Add relatedRules — link 2+ rules with a reason explaining the connection

6. Add resources — MDN docs, WCAG success criteria, relevant articles

7. Fix structure lint issues — rename final Testing/Checklist-style headings to ## Verification, keep optional guidance between Why It Matters and Verification, and never place H2 sections after Verification

8. Add contract clarity where needed — use Exceptions, verification split, and standards/support notes only when the rule type actually benefits from them

Explain

The quality score is a proxy for how useful the rule is to both human developers and AI agents.

• A rule with stub prompts gives Claude generic instructions — the AI can't provide targeted help
• A rule without code examples is hard to learn from
• A rule without aiContext won't trigger at the right moment when used as a Claude Code skill
• A rule without relatedRules is an island — agents can't traverse the knowledge graph

High-quality rules become high-quality skills that Claude can use proactively and precisely.

Code Review

When reviewing a PR that adds or modifies rule MDX files, check:

• No stub prompts (grep for "Verify if the project adheres to")
• At least 3 tldr bullets
• whyItMatters is specific (mentions user impact, not just "improves quality")
• Body has at least one ✅ and one ❌ code example
• ## Verification is the final H2 and ## Why It Matters appears before it
• pnpm validate:rule-structure {file} passes
• Score is ≥ 50: pnpm score:rules {file}

See references/scoring-rubric.md for the full scoring specification. Rule page: https://frontendchecklist.io