Conciseness

The ~520-line body is mostly tight ❌/✅ code examples with little prose padding, but it re-states reference material Claude already knows well: the POUR principles table, conformance-level table, contrast ratio tables, the standard prefers-reduced-motion and visually-hidden snippets, and generic screen-reader command tables. Much of this duplicates references/WCAG.md, so it could be tightened considerably. It sits at anchor 3 ('mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened') — below anchor 4 because whole sections re-teach known material, above anchor 2 because there is no conceptual filler prose.

Actionability

Nearly every section gives copy-paste-ready HTML/CSS/JS with correct/incorrect pairs, plus executable audit commands ("npx lighthouse https://example.com --only-categories=accessibility", "axe https://example.com") and a concrete manual-testing checklist. This matches anchor 5 ('fully executable; copy-paste ready code or commands; specific examples cover the common cases') — the modal focus trap, form labeling, error announcement, and ARIA tabs patterns are all directly usable.

Workflow Clarity

There is an implicit audit path — automated testing commands, manual testing checklist, then a prioritized fix list ("Critical (fix immediately)" / "Serious" / "Moderate") — but no explicit sequence or validation loop (e.g., run audit → fix → re-run audit to verify). This matches anchor 3 ('steps listed but validation gaps; sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit'); it does not reach anchor 4, which requires a clear sequence with most checkpoints present, and exceeds anchor 2 because the components of a workflow are all present and organized.

Progressive Disclosure

Section structure by POUR principle is good with clear headers, but the actual bundle is mishandled: references/WCAG.md exists in the skill's bundle yet is never referenced from the body, and criteria-level reference material that belongs there (contrast tables, success-criteria listings) is instead inlined in SKILL.md. Per anchor 3 ('references present but not clearly signaled; content that should be separate is inline') this fits; it is above anchor 2 because the body is well-sectioned and navigable, and below anchor 4 because the one bundle file is completely unlinked while its content is duplicated inline.

Specificity

"Audit and improve web accessibility following WCAG 2.1 guidelines" names the domain plus two concrete actions (audit, improve), but stops there — no mention of fixing specific issue classes (contrast, labels, ARIA, keyboard traps) that the skill actually covers. This matches anchor 3 ('names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'); it is below anchor 4 ('lists several specific actions') because only two generic verbs are given, and above anchor 2 because the domain and both actions are explicit.

Completeness

The description explicitly answers both questions: what ("Audit and improve web accessibility following WCAG 2.1 guidelines") and when ("Use when asked to 'improve accessibility', 'a11y audit', ...") with concrete quoted trigger phrases. This directly matches the anchor 5 example pattern, including an explicit negative-trigger clause.

Trigger Term Quality

Triggers include natural phrases users would say — "improve accessibility", "a11y audit", "WCAG compliance", "screen reader support", "keyboard navigation", "make accessible" — with the a11y synonym covered. It falls short of anchor 5's comprehensiveness (e.g., missing plain "accessibility check", alt text, color contrast, Section 508/ADA) but is clearly above anchor 3 ('missing common variations or synonyms').

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (WCAG 2.1 web accessibility) with explicit disambiguation: "Do NOT use for SEO (use seo), performance (use core-web-vitals), or comprehensive site audits covering multiple areas (use web-quality-audit)". Named adjacent skills are redirected, giving minimal conflict risk — a textbook anchor 5.