Conciseness

The intro expands E-E-A-T ("rates sites on Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness") — a concept Claude already knows — and the "Explain" section substantially duplicates the intro's quality-rater rationale; "Check" and "Code Review" also overlap on footer/About/byline link verification. Mostly efficient, but the redundancy between intro, Explain, and Code Review could be tightened. Not 4 because the duplicated rationale is more than a minor instance; not 2 because there is no library/tutorial-style padding and the sections are individually tight.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: exact paths to check ("/editorial-policy", "/about/editorial-standards"), a five-item verification list, a named section structure for the fix (Mission, Author standards, Research and fact-checking, Update policy, Conflict of interest), and "Verify the editorial policy URL returns a 200 status code". Not 5 because no copy-paste command (e.g., a curl check) or inline example is given — code is deferred to references/rule.md; not 3 because the guidance is specific and executable, not high-level hints.

Workflow Clarity

Coherent Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sequence: the Check section defines what to audit (5 numbered items), Fix gives numbered steps, and Code Review adds an explicit verification checkpoint (200 status, substantive content, not boilerplate). Not 5 because there is no explicit feedback loop (what to re-check after fixing) and the link between Check findings and Fix steps is implicit; not 3 because the sequence is clear and a validation checkpoint is present.

Progressive Disclosure

The ~40-line body is well-sectioned (Quick Reference, Check, Fix, Explain, Code Review) and cleanly offloads implementation detail, code examples, and framework-specific guidance to references/rule.md — a real file, one level deep, containing the code examples and verification detail. Per the rubric's simple-skill guidance, a sub-50-line skill with well-organized sections and a clearly signaled one-level reference earns the top anchor.

Specificity

Names the domain ("blog, news site, or YMYL content site") and three concrete actions — "auditing ... for trust signals", "drafting editorial policy page content", "evaluating whether a site meets Google's quality rater trustworthiness criteria". Not 5 because the capabilities are only expressed inside the trigger clause with no standalone 'what' statements; not 3 because it lists several specific actions rather than just 1-2.

Completeness

The explicit "Use when auditing ... drafting ... or evaluating" clause answers 'when' with concrete triggers, and the gerunds convey the 'what'. Not 5 because the 'what' is embedded in the when-clause rather than stated as independent capabilities (compare the anchor's separate what/when sentences); not 3 because both elements are explicitly present.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural phrases a user would say: "editorial policy", "trust signals", "YMYL", "news site", "Google's quality rater", "trustworthiness". Not 5 because common synonyms like "E-E-A-T", "author credentials", or "about page" are missing; not 3 because coverage goes well beyond one or two generic keywords.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (editorial policy / quality-rater trustworthiness for content sites) with distinct triggers. Not 5 because "auditing ... for trust signals" could overlap with sibling SEO skills like a generic trust-signals or disclaimers rule; not 3 because the editorial-policy focus is well differentiated from most skills.