Conciseness

The body is short, but the "Quick Reference" bullets largely duplicate the "Check" section ("Ensure attributes like aria-valuenow for sliders are present" vs "Verify that all ARIA roles have their mandatory attributes"), and the "Explain" section restates screen-reader basics Claude already knows. It is mostly efficient but includes unnecessary/redundant material that could be tightened, matching the 3 anchor.

Actionability

There is one concrete example ("aria-valuenow for role='slider'") and a clear pointer to references/rule.md with full code samples, but the body's own guidance is high-level — "Verify that all ARIA roles have their mandatory attributes as defined by the WAI-ARIA specification" gives no list of roles, required attributes, or commands to run. Some concrete guidance exists yet key executable details are missing, fitting the 3 anchor better than the minimal 2.

Workflow Clarity

The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sections imply a loose review sequence, and the Code Review section at least mentions verifying "the fix with browser accessibility tooling or assistive tech", but no explicit ordered steps or validation checkpoints appear in the body (those live in the referenced file). The sequence is present with implicit checkpoints, matching the 3 anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

The ~30-line body is a genuine overview — summary, quick reference, and check/fix/explain/review sections — with a single clearly signaled, one-level-deep pointer ("For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see `references/rule.md`"), and that file exists in the bundle with no further nesting. This matches the 5 anchor: clear overview, well-signaled reference, easy navigation.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — "Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output" — which go beyond naming the domain. However, the core capability is buried in the garbled noun phrase "related to Include required ARIA attributes for roles" rather than stated as an action (e.g., identifying/adding missing required attributes like aria-valuenow), leaving minor gaps in coverage; it is stronger than the 3 anchor (only 1-2 concrete actions) but not the comprehensive 5.

Completeness

Both parts are present: an explicit "Use when reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns" trigger clause, and a what expressed through the check/inspect action verbs. The "what" is muddied by the embedded title phrase "Include required ARIA attributes for roles" and never plainly states the primary capability (flag and add missing required ARIA attributes), so it does not clearly and explicitly answer both like the 5 anchor.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-keyword coverage: "rendered HTML", "interactive components", "design-system patterns", "keyboard behavior", "screen-reader", "ARIA attributes", "roles". A few common terms a user would naturally say are missing — notably "accessibility" and "a11y" — so it falls short of the 5 anchor's comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The ARIA-required-attributes focus is a clear niche with distinct triggers (ARIA roles, attributes, screen-reader output), minimizing conflict risk. The broad opening trigger "reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns" overlaps with sibling accessibility/frontend-review skills, keeping it just below the 5 anchor.