Conciseness

The rationale sentence ('Color-blind users can't see click the red button, screen reader users can't perceive the menu on the right, and deaf users miss audio cues') is repeated nearly verbatim in the intro, again as parenthetical examples in Check, and re-explained in Explain — the latter section teaches concepts Claude already knows. Mostly efficient, but the systematic duplication keeps it below anchor 4.

Actionability

Provides concrete, executable guidance for an instruction-only skill: an explicit list of patterns to flag ('click the red button', 'the circular icon', 'the menu on the right', 'when you hear the beep') and a concrete before/after fix ('Instead of click the green button, use click the Submit button (green)'). Not 5 because verification guidance is vague ('browser accessibility tooling or assistive tech') with no specific tool or check, and the body has no example markup (that lives in the reference).

Workflow Clarity

Sections exist (Check, Fix, Explain, Code Review) but the sequence is incoherent: 'Explain' is not a workflow step and sits mid-flow, while the actual review workflow (Code Review) appears last after Fix. Verification is mentioned only implicitly ('verify the fix with browser accessibility tooling'), matching the anchor 'sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit' rather than 4's mostly-present checkpoints.

Progressive Disclosure

The short SKILL.md body is a clean overview with a clearly signaled, one-level-deep pointer to references/rule.md ('For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see references/rule.md'), and that file exists (199 lines) with the promised code examples and detail. Content is appropriately split and easy to navigate, matching the simple-skill exception in the scoring notes.

Specificity

Lists several concrete review actions ('Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output') grounded in a named domain (rendered HTML, interactive components, design-system patterns). Falls short of 5 because coverage of what the skill does is process-oriented and incomplete rather than comprehensive.

Completeness

Both 'what' (check semantics, inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, screen-reader output) and 'when' ('Use when reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns related to...') are explicitly present. Not 5 because the hedge 'where relevant' and the awkward clause 'related to Avoid sensory-only instructions' make the what/when less crisp and concrete than the anchor-5 example.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural terms a user would plausibly say: 'rendered HTML', 'interactive components', 'design-system patterns', 'keyboard behavior', 'screen-reader output'. A few common natural variations are missing (e.g., 'accessibility', 'a11y', 'screen reader review', 'WCAG'), which keeps it below the comprehensive anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Only the buried phrase 'Avoid sensory-only instructions' distinguishes this skill; the rest ('Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output') is generic accessibility-review language shared by many sibling a11y rules, so it could still overlap with closely related skills. Not 4 because the distinguishing trigger is not the lead element and the overlap with other accessibility-checklist skills is real.