Conciseness

The body is efficient with brief core-instruction bullets and a tight output-format section; the only redundancy is listing the reference files twice (in the review process and again in the References section).

Actionability

Provides concrete, copy-paste-ready before/after code examples for three common issues plus specific API rules like 'Use foregroundStyle() instead of foregroundColor()', though most detailed review logic is delegated to reference files.

Workflow Clarity

A clear 9-step sequenced review process with a defined output format and prioritized summary; this is a read-only review task so the destructive/batch validation cap does not apply, but no explicit checkpoints are given.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview pointing to nine one-level-deep reference files, each clearly signaled with a descriptive entry in the References section, and all referenced files exist in ./references/.

Specificity

Names the domain ('SwiftUI code') and a concrete action ('reviews') across three focus areas (modern APIs, maintainability, performance), but the action set is a single review verb rather than a comprehensive list of distinct capabilities.

Completeness

Clearly states what it does ('Comprehensively reviews SwiftUI code for best practices...') and when to use it ('Use when reading, writing, or reviewing SwiftUI projects') with concrete trigger phrases.

Trigger Term Quality

'reading, writing, or reviewing SwiftUI projects' provides good natural keyword coverage, though it misses common synonyms and file extensions like .swift.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Targets a clear niche (SwiftUI code review) with distinct, specific triggers and minimal overlap risk against other skills.