Conciseness

Mostly efficient prose, but there is real duplication: the opening sentence "Screen readers announce empty links as just 'link' with no context..." is repeated nearly verbatim in the "Explain" section, several "Quick Reference" bullets restate the "Fix" section, and the "Code Review" section is templated prose adding little beyond the description. Fits anchor 3 ('mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened') better than anchor 4's 'minor instances', since the redundancy spans multiple sections.

Actionability

Concrete, specific guidance throughout: "Verify all links have accessible names via text content, aria-label, or aria-labelledby", "For icon-only links, add aria-label describing the destination. Use visually-hidden text if visible labels are not desired. Remove or fix broken links." Per the rubric's code-vs-instruction note, absent code is not penalized for an instruction-only skill when guidance is actionable — and it is. Not a 5 because the body itself offers no executable check (the console snippet and axe/Lighthouse commands live only in references/rule.md), leaving minor gaps in the "how to scan" step.

Workflow Clarity

A clear Check → Fix sequence with detection criteria up front, and verification is addressed ("note how to verify the fix with browser accessibility tooling or assistive tech", with concrete verification steps in references/rule.md). Fits anchor 4 ('clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps') — the re-check loop after fixing is implied rather than an explicit step, which keeps it below anchor 5. Not a destructive or batch operation, so the cap at 3 does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a lean overview organized into scannable sections (Quick Reference / Check / Fix / Explain / Code Review), and it cleanly delegates the bulk material — full HTML/CSS/React examples, the console detection script, and verification tooling — to a single, clearly signaled, one-level-deep pointer: "For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see references/rule.md", which was verified to exist and contain exactly that content. Matches anchor 5 ('clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references; content appropriately split').

Specificity

Lists several concrete inspection actions — "Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output" — but only covers the review side; the actual fix actions (add accessible text, aria-label, repair hrefs) are never stated, a minor coverage gap. Fits anchor 4 ('several specific actions; minor gaps') rather than 5, which requires comprehensive coverage of the skill's capabilities, and clearly above anchor 3's '1-2 concrete actions'.

Completeness

Both parts are present: the "what" via the inspection actions ("Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output") and an explicit "Use when reviewing rendered HTML..." trigger clause. Falls short of anchor 5 because the "what" leans on the embedded rule name rather than explicitly stating the skill's fix capabilities, and short of a 5-level concrete trigger-phrase list. The explicit 'Use when...' clause rules out the cap at 3.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like "Fix empty and broken links", "rendered HTML", "screen-reader output", "accessible names", and "keyboard behavior" are terms users would plausibly say when they need this skill. Not a 5 because common synonyms users would actually type — "aria-label", "icon link", "anchor tag" — are absent; not a 3 because the core natural terms (empty links, broken links) are present.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The distinguishing hook "related to Fix empty and broken links" is specific, but the boilerplate trigger "reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns" is generic review language shared by virtually any accessibility- or markup-review skill, so it could fire for sibling rules (empty buttons, missing alt text, broken focus order). Overlap risk with closely related skills is real but not severe — fits anchor 3, below anchor 4's 'minor overlap risk with closely related skills'.