Conciseness

The body is lean and well-sectioned, with genuinely non-obvious SEO facts (PageRank sculpting being ineffective, flow being 'lost, not redistributed'). Minor trimmable redundancy exists: the intro sentence overlaps the Quick Reference bullets, and the Code Review section partially repeats the Check section. Not a 5 because of that overlap; well above the padded anchors of 1-3.

Actionability

Guidance is concrete in intent — scan same-domain <a href> for rel containing nofollow, record source page/anchor text/target URL, remove it, and use meta noindex or robots.txt Disallow instead — but there is no executable command or code snippet (e.g., a grep, DOM selector, or framework example) to actually perform the scan; those are deferred to references/rule.md. This matches 'some concrete guidance but incomplete' rather than anchor 4's concrete commands.

Workflow Clarity

The Check -> Fix sequence is present and the Explain section gives rationale, but there are no validation checkpoints for what is a batch operation: scanning and then editing rel attributes across a site warrants a re-scan/verification step after the fix. Per the rubric's batch-operation cap, workflow clarity cannot exceed 3 without validation.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, well-organized into Quick Reference/Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections, and clearly signals a single one-level-deep reference ('see references/rule.md') that exists in the bundle. Per the rubric's small-skill guidance, this earns a 5.

Specificity

The description names a concrete domain ('auditing internal link structure', 'reviewing link attributes', 'rel=nofollow on links pointing to pages within the same domain') with 1-2 actions, but does not comprehensively enumerate what the skill does (e.g., detect, list, fix, suggest noindex/robots.txt alternatives). It is well above the vague anchors (1-2) but below the 'several specific actions' of 4.

Completeness

An explicit 'Use when' clause is present ('Use when auditing internal link structure or reviewing link attributes'), and the 'what' is conveyed by those same verb phrases plus the scope sentence ('Applies to any site using rel=nofollow...'). Both what and when are answered, but the 'what' is folded into the trigger clause and is less explicit than the anchor-5 example's standalone capability enumeration.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords are present ('nofollow', 'link attributes', 'internal link structure', 'same domain'), but common natural variations users would say are missing, such as 'PageRank', 'SEO', 'link audit', or 'internal links' as a plain phrase. Not the purely generic/jargon-only anchors of 1-2, but not the good-to-comprehensive coverage of 4-5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The rel=nofollow-on-internal-links niche is fairly distinct with specific triggers, but 'auditing internal link structure or reviewing link attributes' is broad enough to overlap with generic link-checking or SEO-audit skills. Minor overlap risk, matching anchor 4 rather than the minimal-conflict clarity of 5.