Conciseness

The body is short and sectioned, but it is padded by duplication: "Fix" restates the Quick Reference bullets nearly verbatim ("Define technical terms when first used", "Write in active voice", "Target a reading level"), and "Explain" repeats the opening sentence word-for-word ("users with cognitive disabilities, learning differences, attention disorders, non-native speakers...") — a concept Claude already knows. This fits the anchor for mostly efficient but with unnecessary explanation that could be tightened; it is not 4 because the repetition spans multiple sections.

Actionability

The guidance gives concrete principles ("Use short sentences and common words", "Write in active voice", "Target reading level appropriate for your audience (often 8th grade)") but no examples or executable methods — "Verify reading level is appropriate" names no tool or threshold, and no before/after rewrite is shown in the body. This matches the anchor for some concrete guidance but incomplete with missing key details, not 4 since nothing in the body is directly actionable without opening the reference.

Workflow Clarity

The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sections form a clear single-purpose sequence, and the Code Review section includes a verification cue ("note how to verify the fix with browser accessibility tooling or assistive tech"). It is not 5 because the validation step is abstract — no concrete checkpoint for verifying reading level or confirming the fix — which fits the anchor for a clear sequence with minor validation gaps.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a well-organized overview with clearly signaled one-level-deep references: "For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see `references/rule.md`" — and that file exists with substantive content (examples, Avoid/Use table, checklist, verification steps). This matches the anchor for a clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references and easy navigation.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — "Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output" — which matches the anchor for several specific actions. It falls short of 5 because coverage has a real gap: none of the skill's actual plain-language actions (jargon review, simplifying sentences, reading-level checks) are stated, and the garbled clause "design-system patterns related to Write in plain language" muddies the action list.

Completeness

Both parts are explicitly present: a clear what ("Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output") and an explicit when ("Use when reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns..."). It is not 5 because the when clause is malformed ("...related to Write in plain language") and its triggers don't align with the stated actions, leaving the when-specificity below the clear-and-explicit anchor.

Trigger Term Quality

There are relevant keywords ("rendered HTML", "interactive components", "screen-reader output") but the natural phrases a user would say when needing this skill — "plain language", "jargon", "readability", "reading level", "simplify text" — are missing except for the awkwardly embedded "Write in plain language". This matches the anchor for some relevant keywords missing common variations or synonyms, rather than 4 where only a few natural terms are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The body of the description is generic accessibility-review boilerplate (semantics, keyboard, focus, screen readers) that would equally describe nearly any accessibility skill, creating overlap risk with sibling accessibility rules. Only the embedded "Write in plain language" phrase differentiates it, which fits the anchor for somewhat specific but still overlapping with similar skills — not 4, since the differentiator is garbled rather than a clean distinct trigger.