Conciseness

Lean and imperative nearly everywhere ("Each page has one type. Do not mix types.", "One instruction per sentence. Max 20 words in procedures, 25 in descriptions."), but the accessibility section repeats generic alt-text and video guidance Claude already knows. Anchor 4 ('efficient; minor instances of over-explanation') fits better than 5.

Actionability

Instruction-only skill with concrete, checkable rules: a two-question type algorithm ("action or cognition? study or work?"), hard limits (max 20/25 words), ordering rules with inline examples ("If X, do Y.", "Set the variable.", alt=""). Per the rubric's code-vs-instruction note, absent code is not penalized when guidance is this actionable; not below 5 because specific examples cover the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

A clear entry point exists ("Before you write, identify the type") plus per-topic rules, but the body is a rulebook rather than a sequenced edit/review workflow — no explicit ordering across sections or review checklist. No destructive/batch operations, so the cap at 3 does not apply; anchor 4's 'minor gaps' is the best fit.

Progressive Disclosure

A ~40-line overview keeps core operating rules inline and defers detail via two well-signaled, verified, one-level-deep references (card-images.md, card-design.md), each annotated with scope and a read-when hint. Design values correctly live in scripts/ and data in assets/, matching anchor 5's clear overview with easy navigation.

Specificity

Enumerates several concrete actions ("Write and restructure", "adding, editing, or reviewing") and pins them to named methods (Diátaxis, ASD-STE100) and a location (docs/), matching anchor 4's 'several specific actions; minor gaps'. Not 5 because coverage of what each action involves is not comprehensive, and not 3 since more than 1-2 actions are explicitly listed.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: what ("Write and restructure Phoenix documentation in docs/ using the Diátaxis framework, with ASD-STE100 Simplified Technical English") and when ("Use when adding, editing, or reviewing any docs page") with concrete trigger phrases. Anchor 4's caveat that 'when could be more explicit' does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases a user would say are present: "documentation", "docs", "docs page", "adding, editing, or reviewing". Falls short of anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage — terms like MDX, tutorial, or guide are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Phoenix documentation in docs/" carves a clear project-specific niche with triggers anchored to it, giving minimal conflict risk with other skills. Voice is third person, so no specificity penalty applies.