Conciseness

The body is dense and operational throughout — exact tool calls, parameters (`limit: 50`, `nextCursor`, `runNowCostUsd` as `maxCostUsd`), counts, and per-state branch conditions — with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows. A few passages could still be trimmed (the long "No tracker" bullet, the project-renaming procedure in Project context step 3), which keeps it below the lean anchor 5.

Actionability

Fully actionable for an instruction-only skill: exact MCP tool names and parameters, specific counts (10-15 prompts, five or six pages to read, five to eight candidates), the specific crawlers to check in `robots.txt`, a fully specified report structure down to table columns, and even a chat lead-sentence template with a worked example. Nothing is left as vague direction.

Workflow Clarity

Five clearly sequenced steps with an explicit decision branch for every tracker state (completed run, in progress, no runs, no active prompts, no tracker) and validation checkpoints throughout: cost approval before any spend, `pollAfterSeconds` polling, "If it returns an error, such as no paid plan, continue without it and say so", "Read it before claiming so", and "A failed or partial run still supplies whatever answers it completed; report its coverage". The Guardrails section adds an error-avoidance checklist.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well organized with clear headers and a coherent overview-to-workflow-to-output flow, but everything is inline in a single ~105-line file with no references. The detailed report-format spec ("What to return") and the tool inventory could plausibly live in one-level-deep reference files; since the skill exceeds 50 lines, the simple-skill exception to score 5 does not apply.

Specificity

Names the domain and several concrete actions — audit how a brand shows up in AI answers, deliver a short report on prioritized changes — and enumerates three concrete change types ("a third-party page to get onto, an owned page to improve, or an access problem to fix"). It falls short of anchor 5 only because the capability list is not comprehensive; it is well above anchor 3's 1-2 actions.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both parts: the "what" ("Audit how a brand shows up in AI answers about its market and deliver a short report on the few changes most likely to get it mentioned or cited") and the "when" with a concrete "Use when the user asks for..." clause listing trigger phrases. This matches the anchor-5 example structure exactly.

Trigger Term Quality

Covers natural phrasings users would actually say — "AI visibility audit", "GEO or AEO audit", "why AI recommends competitors instead of them", "how to show up in ChatGPT, Gemini or Google AI answers" — including the domain's synonyms (GEO/AEO) and engine names. Anchor 4 would require missing natural terms, and none of the common ways to ask for this are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (AI answer visibility) with distinct triggers — GEO/AEO audits, ChatGPT/Gemini/Google AI answer presence, competitor-recommendation complaints — that no generic SEO or analytics skill would claim. Minimal conflict risk; anchor 4's "minor overlap risk" does not apply.