Conciseness

The body is lean — short Quick Reference bullets and one-to-two-sentence Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections with no tutorial padding about concepts Claude already knows. Not 5 because the opening sentence ("required by law (e.g., FTC guidelines)... user trust") and the "Explain" section ("legal and ethical importance... user trust and SEO") restate the same rationale twice, a minor trim.

Actionability

Some concrete guidance exists ("Place the disclosure at the top of the page, before any affiliate links appear", "Use simple, unambiguous language"), but the body never shows an example disclosure statement, example markup, or a method for locating affiliate links (selector, grep, crawl) — the actual example is deferred to references/rule.md. Fits 'some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details'; not 4 because nothing in the body itself is copy-paste ready, and not 2 because the placement and wording directives are specific.

Workflow Clarity

A coherent simple-skill sequence is present: Quick Reference → Check (verify pages have a visible disclosure before links) → Fix (add a standardized statement) → Explain → Code Review (flag routes/templates and verify final output). Not 5 because there is no re-verification checkpoint after Fix in the body (the reference's "re-crawl after deployment" loop is not surfaced); not 3 because each step is unambiguous and correctly ordered for a single-purpose skill.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview that appropriately defers implementation detail via one clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference: "For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see `references/rule.md`" — and that file exists and contains the code example, rationale, exceptions, and verification steps, with no further nesting. Matches the clear-overview anchor exactly.

Specificity

Names the domain (SEO auditing of affiliate disclosures) and 1-2 concrete actions — "auditing metadata, crawlability, structured data, or indexability" and "Verify the rendered HTML and HTTP response" — but these are audit targets around a single verb, not a list of several distinct actions (no fixing, flagging, or reporting capabilities). Fits the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions' anchor; not 4 because coverage of capabilities is not broader, and not 2 because the actions are more concrete than 'Processes PDF files'.

Completeness

Both parts are present: an explicit trigger ("Use when auditing metadata, crawlability, structured data, or indexability related to...") and a what (audit/verify behavior: "Verify the rendered HTML and HTTP response rather than relying only on source files"). Not 5 because the 'what' states a method rather than a crisp capability list, and the grafted rule-title phrase "related to Provide clear affiliate disclosures" muddies both parts; not 3 because the 'when' clause is explicit, not merely implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage: "auditing", "metadata", "crawlability", "structured data", "indexability", "affiliate disclosures", "rendered HTML", "HTTP response" — natural terms an SEO reviewer would say. Not 5 because common synonyms are missing ("sponsored links/content", "paid links", "FTC disclosure", "hidden ads"); not 3 because coverage within the niche goes beyond 'some relevant keywords'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"affiliate disclosures" is a niche term, but the trigger clause "auditing metadata, crawlability, structured data, or indexability" is a generic SEO-audit trigger that would equally fire for sibling SEO rule skills (meta descriptions, robots.txt, structured data rules). Somewhat specific yet with real overlap risk against closely related skills; not 4 because the shared boilerplate trigger would collide within an SEO skill family, not merely with one adjacent skill.