Conciseness

The body is overwhelmingly dense and command-first (「最多 5 个问题，请求里已经回答过的就跳过」), explaining no basic concepts. But a few advisory/meta passages could be trimmed or moved to a reference: the opening 「好片子从哪来：变化密度、运动质感、一个记忆点、音画关系」 philosophy paragraph, and the 'Opus 的长处' list (「一个文件里能混用 Canvas、SVG/DOM、WebGL、Three.js…一句「全力以赴」就可能出很惊艳的东西」) which is commentary rather than instruction. The inline '默认坑' list (深色背景、居中大字、紫蓝渐变加发光、A 小调四踩) also duplicates craft.md §11's 默认味清单. This sits at 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' — not 5 because not every token is strictly operational, not 3 because the bulk is genuinely lean with real information density.

Actionability

Copy-paste-ready commands with flags and defaults throughout: 「sh <skill>/scripts/scaffold.sh <slug> [--audio synth|tone|layer|none]」, 「render.mjs <slug> --still 0.6,7.2,14.5 --sheet」, 「node <skill>/scripts/inspect.mjs qa <slug>/out/final.mp4 --out <slug>/qa/final --expect-size 1920x1080 --expect-fps 30 --expect-duration 16 --audio required」, plus concrete defaults (「15 秒 · 1920×1080 · 30fps」) and a 工具速查 table. Not score 4: the commands are complete, placeholders are defined, and the command table covers the common cases — matching the 'fully executable' anchor.

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced 0–7 workflow with explicit programmatic validation gates and feedback loops: 「跑确定性检查 render.mjs <slug> --determinism，不通过就先修」, build refuses on failure (「先跑确定性检查（不过不出片）」), 「只要有一项 FAIL，退出码就是 1，必须修好」, and a fix-retry loop 「修完只重渲有问题的那一段，再出整片」. A single human checkpoint is explicitly marked (「🛑 唯一的停顿点」). This matches the score-5 anchor (explicit validation steps, error-recovery loops, checklist via 底线).

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an overview and pushes all detail into a per-need reference system with an explicit 「参考文件（按需读）」 table stating exactly when to read each file (formats.md at step 2, stack.md at step 4, review.md at step 6, etc.). All referenced paths were verified to exist in the bundle: references/{formats,craft,brief-template,stack,recipes,sound,review,field-notes}.md, references/styles/INDEX.md with 28 style files plus _template.md, and scripts/{setup.sh,scaffold.sh,render.mjs,inspect.mjs,audio.mjs,check-env.mjs}. References are one level deep and clearly signaled — matching the score-5 anchor.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions and outputs: 「用代码制作以图形、文字或界面动画为主的短视频（常见 5–60 秒…），输出 MP4 和可编辑源码」 plus an explicit deliverable inventory (「产品宣传短片、动效作品集、UI 动效演示、动态排版与金句卡点、Logo 演绎与片头、生成艺术循环、年代回顾短片」) and concrete music handling (「代码合成，或按用户提供的曲子卡点」). Coverage is comprehensive with no generic filler, matching the score-5 anchor rather than the 'minor gaps' of score 4.

Completeness

Both 'what' (first half: medium, duration, deliverables, output format, scoring options) and 'when' (「用户想做这类短视频或动效时使用，例如…」) are explicit, with concrete trigger phrases — the exact score-5 anchor. It even adds a negative scope (「不用于：…」), going beyond the anchor. Not score 4: the 'when' is not merely present, it is spelled out with example triggers.

Trigger Term Quality

It embeds verbatim user utterances as triggers — 「做个 15 秒动效视频」「做个 Logo 动画 / 片头」「做个产品宣传短片」「用代码做视频」 — alongside natural synonyms like 短视频、动效、卡点、片头、宣传短片、循环动图. These are exactly the phrasings a user would say. Not score 4 ('a few natural terms missing'): the example quotes cover the main request phrasings directly.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (code-made motion shorts) with explicit exclusions that carve it away from every adjacent skill: 「不用于：口播讲解类长视频、网页与交互原型、写实人物或实拍内容、剪辑已有视频」. These boundaries make wrong-skill triggering unlikely, matching the 'clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk' anchor.