Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's ARIA knowledge ('Use tablist, tab, and tabpanel roles', 'roving tabindex') with no padding or beginner explanation. Anchor 4 rather than 5 only because the Check and Fix sections repeat the same role names, and the awkward 'related to Make tabs keyboard navigable' phrase recurs in the Code Review section.

Actionability

Concrete, specific guidance throughout: exact roles (tablist/tab/tabpanel), roving tabindex, arrow-key/Tab behavior, and aria-controls/aria-labelledby pairing, plus 'Flag exact elements, attributes, and routes'. Anchor 4 rather than 5 because there is no inline code example — the working markup lives in references/rule.md — leaving a minor gap for immediate execution.

Workflow Clarity

The single-purpose review flow is coherent and well-sequenced: Quick Reference criteria, then Check, Fix, Explain, and Code Review sections. Anchor 4 rather than 5 because the Check step does not specify how to verify (e.g., which key interactions to test or what counts as a violation), leaving the verification checkpoint implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The short body is a clear overview with well-organized sections, and all implementation detail is split into a single, clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference ('For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see references/rule.md', verified to exist). Matches the anchor-5 pattern exactly for a skill of this size.

Specificity

The description names the domain and two concrete actions ('reviewing templates, rendered HTML, or shared components' and 'Validate the final browser-facing markup, not just the source framework abstraction'), but coverage is not comprehensive — the checking/fixing workflow implied by the skill body is not reflected. It falls between anchor 3 and 4, but closer to 3 since the 'what' is limited to reviewing/validating.

Completeness

Both parts are present: an explicit 'Use when reviewing templates, rendered HTML, or shared components...' trigger clause, and a 'what' ('Validate the final browser-facing markup, not just the source framework abstraction'). Not a 5 because the 'what' could be more concrete about what the skill actually does (check roles, keyboard patterns, flag violations).

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords like 'tabs', 'keyboard navigable', 'templates', and 'rendered HTML' are present, but common natural variations users would say are missing — notably 'accessibility', 'a11y', 'ARIA', and 'screen reader'. Matches anchor 3 (some relevant keywords but missing common variations), not 4 which requires good coverage with only a few terms missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The tabs keyboard-navigability niche is distinct with clear triggers, but 'reviewing templates, rendered HTML, or shared components' is a broad framing that could overlap with other HTML/component review skills. Mostly distinct with minor overlap risk — anchor 4, not 5.