Conciseness

"Check that every `<select>` element in your forms has a valid accessible name or linked label" largely duplicates the Quick Reference bullets, and the generic "Explain how accessible names for select elements provide the necessary context..." section adds little. Not 4 because of this redundancy across Check/Explain/Code Review; not 2 because the body is short, assumes competence, and never explains basics Claude already knows.

Actionability

"Add a `<label>` element with a `for` attribute that matches the `id` of the `<select>` tag" is concrete, but the body contains no inline executable code example (all code is deferred to the reference) and the aria-label/aria-labelledby alternatives are only named, never shown. Not 4 because an instruction-only skill of this type should include at least a minimal correct/incorrect markup snippet or specifics for the aria path; not 2 because the fix and check directives are specific enough to act on.

Workflow Clarity

The Check → Fix → Code Review section order forms a coherent sequence for a simple single-purpose skill, and verification is signaled via "note how to verify the fix with browser accessibility tooling or assistive tech". Not 5 because there is no explicit validate-checkpoint or fix-and-retry loop in the body itself; not 3 because verification is at least mentioned and the single action is unambiguous.

Progressive Disclosure

"For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see `references/rule.md`" is a clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference, and the bundle file exists and delivers exactly what is promised (code examples, why-it-matters, verification steps). The overview/body split is appropriate for a short skill, matching the 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references' anchor.

Specificity

"Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output" lists several concrete inspection actions, matching the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor. It is not 5 because remediation/verification actions are absent, and not 3 because coverage goes well beyond 1-2 generic actions.

Completeness

Both parts are present: "Use when reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns related to..." supplies the when, and the check/inspect clauses supply the what. Not 5 because the 'what' is awkwardly conveyed via the embedded rule title "related to Provide accessible names for select elements" rather than a crisp capability statement; not 3 because neither half is missing or vague.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural a11y vocabulary users would say: "select elements", "accessible names", "screen-reader", "keyboard", "rendered HTML". Not 5 because common synonyms like "dropdown", "form label", "a11y", or "WCAG" are missing; not 3 because keyword coverage is genuinely good rather than partial.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The templated opener "Use when reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns related to" would equally match any sibling frontendchecklist accessibility rule, so differentiation rests solely on the mid-sentence rule title. Not 4 because the broad first clause creates real overlap risk with closely related accessibility skills; not 2 because the select/accessible-name focus is still identifiable.