Conciseness

Mostly efficient, but several sections could be tightened: the intro ("Conduct comprehensive audits, identify barriers, provide remediation guidance...") restates the description nearly verbatim, the Context section ("The user needs to audit and improve accessibility... Focus on automated testing...") adds little actionable information, and Requirements is a single vague sentence. Not 4 because the redundancy exceeds 'minor instances'; not 2 since no known concepts are explained and the Instructions themselves are lean.

Actionability

Some concrete guidance — "Run automated scans to collect baseline violations", "Perform manual checks (keyboard, screen reader, focus order, contrast)", "Map findings to WCAG criteria, severity, and user impact" — but key details are missing: no tool names, commands, or examples, and the deferred detail ("open `resources/implementation-playbook.md`") points to a file absent from the bundle. Not 4 because nothing is executable (no tools or commands named); not 2 because the checklist enumerates specific check types and scope items beyond minimal hints.

Workflow Clarity

Clear, ordered sequence — confirm scope, run automated scans, perform manual checks, map findings to WCAG criteria, "Provide remediation steps and re-test after fixes" — with a re-test feedback loop and an initial scope checkpoint. Not 5 because there are no explicit validation checkpoints beyond re-test (e.g., scan-coverage adequacy, error recovery if scans fail); not 3 because checkpoints are present and the sequence has no significant gaps.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well organized and the single reference is clearly signaled and one level deep ("If detailed procedures are required, open `resources/implementation-playbook.md`", repeated in Resources), but no bundle files exist — the referenced path does not resolve, so the navigation path to the detailed procedures is broken. Not 4 because a dangling sole reference is more than a minor organization gap; not 2 because nothing that belongs in a separate file is inlined and the reference is not buried.

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — "Audit applications for WCAG compliance, inclusive design, and assistive technology compatibility", "identify barriers", "provide remediation guidance" — matching the anchor for several specific actions with minor gaps. Not 3 (more than 1-2 actions) and not 5 (coverage is not comprehensive; automated testing, reporting, and ongoing practices are absent).

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ("Audit applications for WCAG compliance... identify barriers and provide remediation guidance") and when ("Use when running an accessibility audit or fixing accessibility issues") with two concrete trigger phrases, mirroring the rubric's good-example pattern. Not 4 because the 'when' clause is explicit and specific rather than vague or implicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural phrases users would say — "accessibility audit", "WCAG compliance", "fixing accessibility issues", "assistive technology" — giving good keyword coverage. Not 5 because common variations like "a11y", "Section 508", "screen reader", and "contrast" are missing; not 3 since coverage goes well beyond 'some relevant keywords'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear accessibility-audit niche with distinct triggers ("WCAG compliance", "assistive technology compatibility", "accessibility audit") unlikely to fire the wrong skill. Not 5 because "inclusive design" and generic "remediation guidance" create minor overlap with general design-review skills; not 3 since the triggers are distinctly accessibility-specific.