Conciseness

The body is short (~30 lines) with clear section headers and mostly earns its tokens. It is not a 5 because of minor padding: the intro paragraph ("Internal broken links frustrate users and waste crawl budget by sending search engine bots to non-existent pages, potentially harming your site's SEO") explains consequences Claude already knows, and the "Check" section restates the first Quick Reference bullet. It is well above anchor 3, whose 'unnecessary explanation' would be more substantial.

Actionability

"Scan the website for any internal links that lead to 404 pages or server errors" states the goal but gives no method or command for scanning (no curl/wget --spider/link-checker invocation anywhere in the body), and "Update the broken link to the correct URL or remove it if the destination page no longer exists" is direction rather than executable guidance. Targets and decision rules are specific (404/5xx codes, navigation elements, update-or-remove), which keeps it above anchor 2, but the missing execution details prevent a 4.

Workflow Clarity

A sequence is present (Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review), but validation is implicit at best: "describe how to verify the final page output" defers verification instead of stating a checkpoint, and there is no re-verification step after fixing a link. Since fixing links across a site is a batch-style operation with no validate-and-retry loop, the anchor-3 cap applies; it is above anchor 2 because the steps themselves are well defined.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a lean overview with clear section headers, and it points to exactly one reference — "see `references/rule.md`" — which exists and appropriately holds the deeper material (code example, why-it-matters, exceptions, verification procedures). The reference is one level deep, clearly signaled, and rule.md itself references nothing further, matching the anchor-5 pattern of a well-split, easily navigable bundle.

Specificity

The description names concrete actions — "auditing metadata, crawlability, structured data, or indexability" and "Verify the rendered HTML and HTTP response" — but stops at 1-2 actions without covering scanning, fixing, or reporting, and the action phrasing is muddied by the embedded rule title "related to Resolve internal broken links". It is above anchor 2 (which names only a domain with generic actions) but does not reach anchor 4's 'several specific actions with minor gaps'.

Completeness

Both parts are present: an explicit when ("Use when auditing metadata, crawlability, structured data, or indexability related to...") and a discernible what ("Resolve internal broken links" plus "Verify the rendered HTML and HTTP response rather than relying only on source files"). It is not a 5 because the 'what' is not cleanly stated as the skill's own actions — the rule title is pasted into a 'related to' clause rather than declaring what the skill does.

Trigger Term Quality

It carries solid natural SEO keywords — "metadata", "crawlability", "structured data", "indexability", "broken links", "rendered HTML", "HTTP response" — terms a user auditing SEO would actually say. It falls short of anchor 5 because common synonyms and error-code triggers are missing: no "404", "dead links", or "link checking".

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Resolve internal broken links" is a distinct niche, but the leading trigger list ("auditing metadata, crawlability, structured data, or indexability") is shared vocabulary with sibling SEO-rule skills, so a request like 'audit my structured data' would fire this skill even when broken links are not the topic. It is more specific than anchor 2's broad overlap but does not achieve anchor 4's 'mostly distinct' positioning.