Conciseness

The body is lean (~45 lines) with short sections like 'Quick Reference' and 'Check' that name specific attributes (type='search', role='search') without explaining basics Claude already knows. Minor redundancy remains: the intro sentence is repeated verbatim in the 'Explain' section, and 'Check'/'Fix' restate the Quick Reference bullets, keeping it below the 'every token earns its place' anchor.

Actionability

Concrete, attribute-level instructions are given for the main checks ("Use type='search' and role='search' on the form", "visible or aria-label"), and full executable code is one level deep in references/rule.md. Two items ('Make autocomplete suggestions keyboard navigable', 'Announce result counts to screen readers') are named without any implementation detail in the body, which are minor gaps rather than missing key steps.

Workflow Clarity

The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sections form a clear, coherent sequence for a simple single-purpose rule skill, and no destructive/batch validation is required so no feedback loop cap applies. It sits below the top anchor because the sections are not explicitly linked as a sequence and 'Code Review' partially repeats the description's scope rather than adding a distinct step.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview and the single detail reference (`references/rule.md`) is clearly signaled at the end ("For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see references/rule.md"), is exactly one level deep, and the file exists with the promised code examples. Content is appropriately split between the 45-line overview and the 405-line rule file, matching the 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references' anchor.

Specificity

The description names the domain (search input accessibility in rendered markup) and 1-2 concrete actions — "reviewing templates, rendered HTML, or shared components" and "Validate the final browser-facing markup" — but the actions are generic review/validate verbs rather than a list of specific capabilities, matching the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' anchor. It is not a 4 because it never enumerates what the skill actually does (check, fix, explain, code review of specific attributes).

Completeness

Both what and when are present: an explicit "Use when reviewing templates, rendered HTML, or shared components..." trigger clause, and a what in "Validate the final browser-facing markup, not just the source framework abstraction". It is not a 5 because the 'what' is a single validation stance rather than concrete statements of the skill's capabilities, and the 'when' clause is scoped to code-review contexts only.

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage with natural terms users would say when needing this skill: "templates", "rendered HTML", "shared components", "search inputs", "accessible". It falls short of the top anchor because common variations are missing — "accessibility", "a11y", "screen reader", "ARIA", and "search form" — which a user would plausibly say when asking for this check.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is mostly distinct — search input accessibility validated in final rendered markup — with natural triggers unlikely to hijack unrelated skills. Minor overlap risk remains with closely related HTML accessibility rules from the same family (e.g., form labels, landmark roles), which share trigger vocabulary like 'rendered HTML' and 'accessible', matching the 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills' anchor.