Conciseness

The body is short and mostly efficient, but the same points repeat: the 'Google does not use them / Bing may' caveat appears in the intro, Quick Reference, and Explain; the 'supplement not replace hreflang/LocalBusiness' point appears three times; and the Check and Code Review sections duplicate the same format validations (ISO 3166-2, lat;lon). This fits 'Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' — not a 2, since no section is pure padding and every section carries some unique content.

Actionability

Concrete, copy-paste-ready HTML in the Fix section plus specific format rules with examples ('US-CA', 'GB-ENG', '37.7749;-122.4194') and explicit verification criteria make the guidance mostly executable. It falls short of 5 because inline coverage of incorrect patterns (e.g., the comma-vs-semicolon error) is deferred to references/rule.md, leaving a small gap in the body's common-case coverage.

Workflow Clarity

The Check → Fix sequence is clear, the Fix steps are numbered, and the Check section provides explicit validation criteria (valid ISO code, lat;lon format, ICBM consistency) that function as checkpoints. No destructive or batch operations are involved, so no validation cap applies; a 5 would require an explicit validate-after-fix feedback loop, which is only implicit here.

Progressive Disclosure

The ~40-line body is well-organized into clearly labeled sections, and the single reference (references/rule.md, verified to exist, 133 lines with correct/incorrect examples) is one level deep and clearly signaled at the end with what it contains ('full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance'). For a short skill with a single well-signaled one-level reference, this matches the top anchor.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('geo targeting signals') and one concrete action ('auditing locally-focused or regionally-targeted pages'), but never names the actual tags or further actions like validating or adding them. This matches the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'; a 4 would require several specific actions listed.

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit and specific ('Use when auditing locally-focused or regionally-targeted pages...'), but the 'what' is only weakly implied: the description never states what the skill does with the meta tags (check them, validate formats, add them) and refers to 'these meta tags' without an antecedent. This sits between 'only when present without what' (2) and 'both what and when present' (4), closer to the latter but held back by the vague what.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like 'geo targeting', 'locally-focused', 'regionally-targeted', 'Bing', and 'regional search engines' give good keyword coverage. It falls short of 5 because common variations users would actually say — 'geo meta tags', 'local SEO', 'local business' — are missing, and the phrase 'these meta tags' references tags that are never explicitly named.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Bing/regional-search-engine niche and the explicit Google caveat carve out a clear, narrow trigger territory. Minor overlap risk remains with adjacent local-SEO skills (hreflang, LocalBusiness schema, local SEO auditing), which the description itself mentions only implicitly — matching 'Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills'.