Conciseness

The body is dense and un-padded, but the ~100-row success-criteria tables restate a substantial amount of what Claude already knows (e.g., "Alt text for all images", "Grey text on white" under 1.4.3, basic POUR definitions), which the rubric explicitly penalizes. It could be tightened to deltas, levels, and version-origin markers that Claude cannot reliably recall, with the rest in the reference file; not a 2 because there is no prose padding and the tables are the skill's core reference value.

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and executable for an instruction-only skill: named tools ("axe-core, Lighthouse, WAVE, or IBM Equal Access Checker"), exact test parameters ("zoom to 400%; viewport at 320 CSS px"), specific screen reader/browser pairings, the contrast formula, and a task-to-output-format table. Not a 5 because there are no worked examples or sample outputs (e.g., a model audit-table row or statement skeleton) for the output formats it mandates.

Workflow Clarity

The Full Accessibility Audit is a clear 7-step numbered sequence where each step names the tools and maps to the SCs it tests ("Screen reader test — NVDA + Chrome ... Tests SC 1.1.1, 1.3.1, 4.1.2"). Not a 5 because there is no explicit validation/re-test checkpoint (e.g., verify fixes or re-run the scan after remediation), which the anchor-5 example requires; not a 3 because each step is itself a concrete check with named tools rather than an implicit or missing checkpoint.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a well-organized overview (per-criterion one-row summaries) that defers per-criterion techniques and failures to a clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference — "references/criteria-detail.md — Full WCAG 2.2 success criteria with techniques, sufficient techniques, advisory techniques, and failure techniques" — which exists in the bundle and has its own table of contents for navigation. No inline duplication of the reference's detail and no nested references.

Specificity

The description enumerates several concrete task areas — "accessibility audits", "accessibility statements", "mapping WCAG to accessibility laws", "ARIA patterns" — but phrases capabilities mostly as topic coverage ("advisor covering WCAG 2.0, 2.1, and 2.2") rather than explicit action verbs, leaving a minor gap versus the anchor-5 example's action phrasing. Not a 3 because coverage across versions, audits, statements, and legal mapping is comprehensive; not a 5 because no action verbs like 'audit', 'draft', or 'map' carry the list.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: the 'what' ("Expert WCAG ... advisor covering WCAG 2.0, 2.1, and 2.2") and a full 'when' clause — "Use this skill whenever a user asks about ... or mapping WCAG to accessibility laws" plus "Trigger for any web or digital content accessibility question — even if the user doesn't say 'skill' or 'WCAG'". This clearly and explicitly answers what and when with concrete trigger phrases.

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural-keyword coverage including synonyms and standard identifiers users would actually say: "WCAG success criteria", "conformance levels (A/AA/AAA)", "accessibility audits", "colour contrast", "keyboard accessibility", "screen reader compatibility", "EN 301 549, EAA, ADA, Section 508", plus the catch-all "any web or digital content accessibility question". Matches the anchor-5 pattern of full synonym and extension coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (W3C accessibility standards compliance) with distinct triggers (WCAG, EN 301 549, Section 508, POUR) and minimal overlap risk; the broad "any web accessibility question" clause is scoped to accessibility, not generic. The only conceivable overlap would be with a general frontend/web-dev skill, which is minor and within the niche.