Conciseness

Every section teaches genuinely unknown, load-bearing facts (the CLI's offline behavior, piped-JSON output, exit-code contract, finding shape) with zero explanation of concepts Claude already knows. "Findings are conservative static heuristics" even pre-empts over-trusting, which earns its tokens. Matches anchor 5 ('every token earns its place'); no section could be trimmed without losing information, so 4's 'minor instances of over-explanation' does not apply.

Actionability

The body gives copy-paste-ready commands throughout: "npx -y @frontendchecklist/cli <command>", "git diff --cached | frontendchecklist review -", a full command table, and concrete flags ("--focus accessibility,seo", "--min-priority high", "--fail-on high"). Exit-code semantics and the JSON result shape are specified so responses can be parsed and branched on. Matches anchor 5 ('copy-paste ready ... specific examples cover the common cases'); not 4: there are no gaps — even the not-installed fallback is handled.

Workflow Clarity

The Workflow section is a clear 4-step sequence with an explicit validation checkpoint and feedback loop: "Re-run the review until no critical/high findings remain (`--fail-on high` exits 0)", plus error handling via exit code 2's `{ "error": "..." }`. This is a read-only review skill, so the destructive/batch validation cap does not apply. Matches anchor 5 ('explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery'); step 4's instruction to surface rather than silently drop medium/low findings adds a completeness checkpoint.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is ~48 lines with no external reference files needed, and per the rubric's simple-skill guideline it qualifies for 5 on well-organized sections alone. It additionally implements progressive disclosure through the tool itself: "search <topic>", "rule <slug>", "schema" ("Full command reference as JSON") defer all detailed rule content to on-demand CLI calls, and "Follow up with `search`/`rule` for areas the heuristics cannot see" navigates to it. Not 4: nothing that belongs in a separate file is inlined.

Specificity

"Review frontend code and live pages against the Front-End Checklist (380+ rules for accessibility, performance, SEO, security, HTML, CSS, JavaScript, images, i18n, privacy, testing) using the `frontendchecklist` CLI" names the concrete actions (code review, live-page audit), the tool, and comprehensively enumerates the rule domains. Not score 4: coverage of categories and technologies (HTML/CSS/JS/JSX/TSX/Vue/Svelte/Astro) leaves no meaningful gaps; not below 5: every phrase names something concrete, with no filler.

Completeness

Both questions are answered explicitly: the 'what' ("Review frontend code and live pages against the Front-End Checklist ... using the `frontendchecklist` CLI") and the 'when' ("Use when writing, reviewing, or shipping ... before a commit or PR, or when asked to audit a public URL"). This mirrors the anchor-5 example structure exactly, so 4 (when 'could be more explicit') does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

"writing, reviewing, or shipping HTML/CSS/JS/JSX/TSX/Vue/Svelte/Astro code, before a commit or PR, or when asked to audit a public URL" covers natural user phrasings plus file extensions and framework names. This matches the anchor-5 pattern ("PDF files, PDFs, forms, document extraction, .pdf") — synonyms and extensions are present; only the most obscure variants are absent, which would justify at most a 4, but the coverage here is comprehensive for this domain.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Front-End Checklist niche with a named CLI is a clear, specific niche, but triggers like "reviewing ... code" and "before a commit or PR" have minor overlap risk with generic code-review and security-review skills, matching anchor 4 ("Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills"). Not 5: it does not fully eliminate conflict with closely related review skills; not 3: the domain (frontend checklist auditing) is far more specific than "Works with document files".