Conciseness

The body is lean: a one-line motivation, five tight Quick Reference bullets, and one-sentence Check/Fix/Explain sections. Not a 5 because of minor over-explanation — the intro sentence ("screen reader users will only hear that a progress bar exists") overlaps with the Explain section, and the Code Review paragraph is generic boilerplate ("focus behavior, or keyboard interactions") that pads beyond this rule's scope.

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and executable: "Use `aria-label` or `aria-labelledby` to name progress bars", "Provide `aria-valuenow`, `aria-valuemin`, and `aria-valuemax`", and the Check names the exact selector (role="progressbar"). Not a 5 because no markup example appears in the body — all copy-paste-ready code lives in references/rule.md — so the Fix section tells what to add but not what the fixed element looks like.

Workflow Clarity

This is a simple single-purpose skill (~35 lines) whose single action is unambiguous: check that role="progressbar" elements have an accessible name via aria-label/aria-labelledby, then fix with the same attributes — meeting the simple-skill exception for a 5. The Check/Fix/Explain sequence confirms the one action is unambiguous, and no destructive/batch validation is required.

Progressive Disclosure

The bundle structure matches the disclosure pattern: references/rule.md exists (verified, 58 lines with the ARIA code examples) and is clearly signaled at the end of the body — "For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see `references/rule.md`" — exactly one level deep with no nesting. Quick-reference content is appropriately in the body and detail appropriately in the reference.

Specificity

Lists several concrete inspection actions — "Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output" — matching the anchor for several specific actions with minor gaps. Not a 5 because it never states the core remediation capability (adding aria-label/aria-labelledby, providing aria-valuenow/min/max), only the review-side inspection steps.

Completeness

Both parts are present: an explicit "Use when reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns" trigger clause and a what consisting of concrete check/inspect actions. Not a 5 because the 'what' is generic accessibility-review process rather than the progressbar-naming task itself, and the trigger clause is broad while the actual task is awkwardly bolted on via "related to Provide accessible names for progress bars".

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-keyword coverage: "progress bars", "accessible names", "screen-reader output", "rendered HTML", "interactive components" are phrases users would naturally say. Not a 5 because high-signal synonyms and tokens are missing — "aria", "aria-label", "spinner", "loading indicator" — and the key phrase "Provide accessible names for progress bars" is a rule title pasted verbatim rather than natural user language.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The tail ("Provide accessible names for progress bars", "accessible names") carves out a clear niche with minimal conflict risk. Not a 5 because the opening — "reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns" — is broad enough to overlap with sibling accessibility/ARIA review skills before the rule-specific tail disambiguates.