Conciseness

The body is lean and well-sectioned, with only minor trimmable padding: the intro sentence "Properly defined headers allow screen readers to announce the context for each data cell" recaps accessibility knowledge Claude already has, and Quick Reference bullets like "often the clearest first fix" are mildly hedged filler. This matches anchor 4 (efficient with minor instances of over-explanation) rather than anchor 5's every-token-earns-its-place standard.

Actionability

Concrete, executable directives are present — "Convert header cells to <th> and add the correct scope attribute", "Use <th> for all table headers, not <td>", "Apply scope=\"col\" or scope=\"row\"" — and code absence is not penalized for an instruction-only skill with actionable guidance. Minor gaps (no inline correct-markup example, no col-vs-row selection guidance, deferred to the reference file) keep it at anchor 4 rather than 5.

Workflow Clarity

The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sections give a clear, unambiguous sequence for this simple single-purpose skill, and verification is addressed ("note how to verify the fix with browser accessibility tooling or assistive tech"). It matches anchor 4 (clear sequence, most checkpoints present) rather than 5 because the body lacks an explicit inline validation step such as running an accessibility checker or inspecting the accessibility tree.

Progressive Disclosure

A short, well-organized body 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 delivers exactly what is promised (a full code example, why-it-matters, exceptions, and verification steps). This matches anchor 5 and the simple-skill exception for clean structure with well-signaled references.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete inspection actions ("Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output") but never states the skill's core capability as an action — "patterns related to Define proper table headers" is a verb-less noun phrase. It names the domain and concrete actions yet is not comprehensive, matching anchor 3 rather than 4 because the actual deliverable (identify/fix header markup) is unstated.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: an explicit "Use when reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns related to..." trigger clause plus a stated check-then-inspect procedure for the "what". It falls short of anchor 5 because the trigger phrase "related to Define proper table headers" is awkward rather than a concrete natural phrase, and the "what" never states the outcome; it is above anchor 3 because both what and when are present and reasonably explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage — "rendered HTML", "table headers", "keyboard behavior", "focus flow", "screen-reader output" — but common variations users would say ("data tables", "th elements", "scope attribute", "a11y") are missing, matching anchor 4 rather than the comprehensive synonym coverage of anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"table headers" names a specific niche, but the broad boilerplate "rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns" plus the generic inspection procedure would overlap heavily with any sibling accessibility skill sharing the same template, with the differentiator appearing only once in an awkward phrase. This matches anchor 3 (somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills) rather than anchor 4's mostly-distinct profile.