Conciseness

The body is a lean ~40 lines of task-oriented sections with only minor over-explanation — the motivational opener "Clear disclosures are required by law (e.g., FTC guidelines) and are essential for maintaining user trust" and the overlap between the Quick Reference bullets and the Fix section. It is not a 5 because those two spots could be trimmed, and not a 3 because padding is limited to a sentence or two of broadly-known context.

Actionability

"Place the disclosure at the top of the page, before any affiliate links appear" and "Add a standardized disclosure statement at the beginning of your content or near affiliate links" are concrete, but the body never shows example disclosure wording, gives no method for locating affiliate links, and offers only high-level direction like "Use simple, unambiguous language to explain the financial relationship" — matching the anchor for some concrete guidance with key details missing. It is not a 4 because the copy-paste-ready material (the HTML example) lives only in the reference file, and not a 2 because the placement and fix instructions are specific.

Workflow Clarity

The Check → Fix → Explain sections form a coherent sequence and the Check section ("Verify that all pages containing affiliate links or sponsored content have a clear, visible disclosure before the links appear") doubles as the validation checkpoint, so most checkpoints are present. It is not a 5 because there is no explicit post-fix re-verification loop in the body (re-crawl guidance sits in references/rule.md), and not a 3 because the sequence is clear and each phase is well defined.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clean overview with a single, clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference — "For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see `references/rule.md`" — and that file exists, holds the code example and detail, and points no further. This matches the anchor for a clear overview with well-signaled one-level references and easy navigation; no structural gaps justify a 4.

Specificity

"Verify the rendered HTML and HTTP response rather than relying only on source files" is one concrete action, and "auditing metadata, crawlability, structured data, or indexability" names the domain, but the audit verbs are generic and coverage of the skill's actual check/fix scope is incomplete — matching the anchor for domain plus 1-2 concrete actions. It is not a 4 because no list of several specific actions is given, and not a 2 because the verification action is genuinely concrete.

Completeness

Both parts are explicitly present: "Use when auditing ... related to ... affiliate disclosures" supplies the when, and "Verify the rendered HTML and HTTP response rather than relying only on source files" supplies a what. It is not a 5 because the "what" reads as a verification method rather than the skill's full check/fix capability and the when-clause is garbled template phrasing ("related to Provide clear affiliate disclosures"); not a 3 because both what and when are stated, not merely implied.

Trigger Term Quality

"affiliate disclosures" is the key natural term and is present, but common variations users would say — "affiliate links", "sponsored content", "FTC disclosure" — are missing, while "metadata, crawlability, structured data, or indexability" is generic SEO boilerplate rather than natural phrasing for this rule. It is not a 4 because synonym coverage is thin, and not a 2 because the core trigger term is relevant and included.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"affiliate disclosures" carves out a niche, but "metadata, crawlability, structured data, or indexability" is template language likely shared verbatim across sibling SEO rule skills, creating real overlap risk — the anchor for somewhat specific but still overlapping. It is not a 4 because the boilerplate dilutes the distinct trigger, and not a 2 because the disclosure term does distinguish it from unrelated skills.