Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient but has noticeable redundancy: Quick Reference bullets restate the Check section almost verbatim ("Disclose retention periods and whether analytics, logs, or monitoring receive personal data" vs "Confirm the policy discloses retention periods and whether analytics, logging, or monitoring vendors receive user data"), and the opening GDPR sentence is duplicated in references/rule.md. This is more than the 'minor instances' of anchor 4, but there is no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows, so it stays above anchor 2.

Actionability

Check and Fix give concrete, executable instruction ("Check whether the website footer contains a link to a privacy policy page. Verify the linked page contains an actual privacy policy with contact information..."; "Add a 'Privacy Policy' link to the site footer that appears on every page"). Per the rubric's instruction-only note, absence of code is not penalized, but the generic Code Review paragraph ("Review server config, headers, forms, and integration points related to...") is vague boilerplate, keeping it below anchor 5.

Workflow Clarity

The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sequence is clearly sectioned, and the Check section acts as an explicit verification step (link present on all pages, policy content, retention disclosures). It is below anchor 5 because the ordering and interplay of the four sections is implicit (when Explain vs Code Review applies is unstated) and there is no feedback-loop guidance for a failed check; it is above anchor 3 because the sequence is unambiguous and the verification criteria are explicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a proper overview with a clearly signaled, one-level-deep pointer — "For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see `references/rule.md`" — and the referenced file exists and contains exactly that (code examples, framework guidance, GDPR Article 13 requirements table). No inlined content belongs in a separate file, so navigation is easy.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("website has a visible, accessible privacy policy link, particularly in the footer navigation") and one concrete action — reviewing presence/visibility of the link — but does not cover the fix, explain, or code-review capabilities the body provides, so it is not comprehensive. It is above anchor 2 because the action is concrete and precisely located, not generic.

Completeness

Both parts are present: the "what" is embedded in "reviewing whether a website has a visible, accessible privacy policy link" and an explicit "Use when..." trigger clause opens the description. It is not anchor 5 because the "when" is circular with the "what" rather than offering distinct concrete trigger scenarios, and not anchor 3 because a clear what and an explicit trigger are both stated.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases users would say are present ("privacy policy", "footer", "website", "link"), giving good keyword coverage. It falls short of anchor 5 because common variations and synonyms are missing (e.g., "GDPR", "compliance", "privacy notice", "legal links").

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Privacy policy link... in the footer navigation" is a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal overlap risk; a query about cookie banners or other frontend rules would not naturally match this description.