Conciseness

The same rationale is stated three times: the intro ("Text in images can't be resized by users with low vision, translated automatically, read by screen readers without alt text, or reflowed when zoomed"), the Quick Reference bullet ("Images of text can't be resized, translated, or read by screen readers"), and the Explain section ("Explain how images of text cannot be resized by users, are not readable by screen readers without alt text, cannot reflow on zoom"). Anchor 3: mostly efficient but includes unnecessary repetition that could be tightened.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is concrete: "Replace text images with real HTML text styled with CSS. If images of text are necessary, provide equivalent text in alt attributes. Consider using SVG with embedded text for scalable typography." Anchor 4 rather than 5 because verification guidance stays vague ("browser accessibility tooling or assistive tech" names no specific tool) and no example is shown inline.

Workflow Clarity

A clear Check→Fix→Explain→Code Review sequence covers the single task unambiguously, and the skill is under 50 lines so the simple-skill exception could apply. Held at anchor 4 because the Code Review section's checks ("roles, labels, focus behavior, or keyboard interactions") do not map coherently to the text-in-images rule and verification tooling is left unspecified.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview and the single external reference is clearly signaled and one level deep: "For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see `references/rule.md`." The referenced file exists (references/rule.md, 186 lines including HTML/CSS code examples), matching anchor 5: clear overview, well-signaled one-level-deep references, appropriate split.

Specificity

Lists several concrete review actions ("Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output"), but none describe this skill's actual capability regarding images of text (identifying images containing text, replacing them with real HTML text). The uncovered core task is a larger gap than anchor 4's "minor gaps", so it sits at anchor 3: domain named, actions present but not comprehensive.

Completeness

Both 'when' ("Use when reviewing rendered HTML, interactive components, or design-system patterns related to Avoid images of text") and 'what' ("Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow, accessible names, and screen-reader output") are present, satisfying anchor 4. Not anchor 5 because the 'what' is a generic accessibility-review procedure that never states what the skill does about images of text.

Trigger Term Quality

Contains relevant keywords ("rendered HTML", "interactive components", "design-system patterns") but relies on the rule-name phrase "Avoid images of text" rather than the natural variations a user would say, such as "images of text", "text in images", or "alt text". This matches anchor 3: some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Only the embedded rule name ("Avoid images of text") differentiates this description from sibling accessibility skills that would share the same templated review boilerplate ("Check native semantics first, then inspect keyboard behavior, focus flow..."). Somewhat specific but real overlap risk with similar accessibility skills, matching anchor 3 rather than 2 because the rule name does carve a niche.