Conciseness

The body is dense with non-obvious, skill-specific rules and mostly earns its tokens, but it is roughly 550 lines with noticeable repetition: the never-inline rule, the localhost-origin mismatch, before/after layout guidance, and wireframe quality rules are each restated across multiple sections. It is not a 2 — the padding is duplicated rules rather than generic explanations of things Claude already knows — but it could clearly be tightened.

Actionability

Concrete commands ('npx @agent-native/core@latest plan local serve --dir <plan-dir> --kind recap --open', 'plan blocks --out plan-blocks.md', 'plan local check'), explicit prop schemas (change flags, mode: 'split', annotations anchored to AFTER-side line numbers), and numeric budgets (3-8 tabs, ~150 lines per tab, ~70-char titles) make the guidance highly executable. It stops short of a 5 because MDX authoring forms are not shown inline; they are delegated to the get-plan-blocks catalog, leaving a few concrete examples to fetch at runtime.

Workflow Clarity

The canonical shape skeleton (headline → narrative → data-model/api-endpoint → file-tree → Key changes tabs) gives a clear sequence, and validation checkpoints are explicit: 'plan local check' before reporting, a bounded one-render-one-fix inspection loop, and 'plan local verify'. It is not a 5 because the end-to-end flow is spread across thematic sections rather than one sequenced workflow with an ordered collect→author→validate→report procedure.

Progressive Disclosure

References are real files, one level deep, and strongly signaled ('READ references/wireframe.md ... it is the single source of truth'), with the cross-skill canvas reference also explicitly named. Structure is good, but a substantial amount of detail (URL resolution rules, the bidirectional loop, security gating) is inlined in SKILL.md that could live in reference files, so the split is not fully appropriate as the 5 anchor requires.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete deliverables — 'an interactive visual recap with diagrams, file maps, API/schema summaries, annotated diffs, and focused review notes' — and names concrete inputs (PR, branch, commit, git diff). Coverage of what the skill produces is comprehensive; it is not below the 5 anchor since no output type is missing and none of the phrasing is generic.

Completeness

The 'what' is explicit and concrete, but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance in the description — the 'when' is only weakly implied by naming the inputs. Per the rubric guideline, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 3.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms like 'PR', 'branch', 'commit', 'git diff', 'diagrams', 'annotated diffs', and 'review notes' cover what a user would plausibly say. It misses common synonyms a user might naturally use, such as 'summarize this PR', 'what changed', or 'changelog', so it falls between the 4 anchor (good coverage, a few terms missing) and the 5 anchor (synonyms and extensions) rather than clearly matching either.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The git-diff-to-visual-recap niche is clearly distinct from unrelated skills, with specific trigger terms. There is minor overlap risk with a closely related forward-planning skill (visual-plan) that operates on the same block vocabulary, which keeps it from a clear 5.