Conciseness

Mostly efficient at ~35 lines, but there is real duplication: the Quick Reference bullets ("Visible text should be part of the accessible name (ARIA label)", "Ensure speech-to-text users can trigger controls by their visible name") restate the intro and the Check section, and the Explain section directs Claude to explain a concept it already knows. Not anchor 2 because the padding is limited to these few spots, not pervasive.

Actionability

Check and Fix are reasonably concrete — "Compare the visible text of buttons and links with their 'aria-label' or 'aria-labelledby' attributes" and "include the exact string of the visible label text at the beginning of the accessible name" — but no code example lives in the body, and verification is left vague ("verify the fix with browser accessibility tooling or assistive tech" names no actual tool or method). That missing key detail fits anchor 3 rather than anchor 4's mostly-executable guidance.

Workflow Clarity

The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sections give a recognizable sequence for this review skill, but validation checkpoints are only implicit — the sole verification mention is the generic "note how to verify the fix with browser accessibility tooling or assistive tech" with no concrete step or tool. This matches anchor 3: sequence present, checkpoints missing or implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is short and well-organized into clear sections, and detailed material (code examples, framework guidance) is correctly pushed to a single, clearly signaled one-level-deep reference — "see `references/rule.md`" — which exists in the bundle and contains the correct/incorrect code examples without further nesting. This matches the anchor 5 pattern and the rubric's exception for simple, well-organized skills.

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — "Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output" — which goes beyond naming the domain. It stops short of anchor 5 because several listed actions (keyboard behavior, focus flow) drift away from the actual label-in-name rule, leaving minor coverage gaps rather than comprehensive, on-target actions.

Completeness

Both parts are explicit: the "what" is the inspection sequence ("Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output") and the "when" opens with a clear "Use when reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns..." clause. It falls short of anchor 5 because the core deliverable — flagging mismatches between visible labels and accessible names — is only implied by the rule title rather than stated as a concrete trigger phrase.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural phrases users would plausibly say when needing this skill: "rendered HTML", "interactive components", "design-system patterns", "accessible names", "screen-reader output". Not anchor 5 because common synonyms like "a11y", "ARIA", "WCAG", or "voice control" are absent; not anchor 3 because the terms present are natural, not just technical jargon.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The qualifier "related to Align visible labels with accessible names" carves out a distinct niche, and terms like "accessible names" are specific to this rule. Minor overlap risk remains with other accessibility-review skills because the broad triggers "reviewing rendered HTML" or "interactive components" could fire for unrelated a11y checks, keeping it below anchor 5.