Conciseness

The body is extremely lean with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows — every sentence (e.g., "The host owns preview/export; no replacement project, preview host or application-source edits") carries an instruction. It fully assumes Claude's competence; every token earns its place.

Actionability

There is concrete guidance — specific paths ("design/<session-id>/", "design-tokens.css"), concrete constraints ("Preserve `--ipw-*` tokens/variable bindings, component IDs"), and per-type routing to named rule files — but no executable steps for the core editing task itself; the actual procedures are deferred to external files. This matches 'some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details' rather than the mostly-executable anchor at 4.

Workflow Clarity

Checkpoints exist ("Verify affected editing/interaction and requested supported exports; disclose unavailable/unperformed checks", "Shared style/token changes require whole-artifact rechecking", stale-locator recovery), so validation is not absent. But the sequence (route → read source → select → edit → verify → report) is only implicit in paragraph order with no explicit ordering, matching 'steps present but checkpoints implicit / sequence gaps'.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a short overview with well-signaled, one-level-deep references ([Article rules], [Report rules], [Shared guidance], [Other rules]) plus scoped reading instructions ("Targeted copy/selection/theme edits read affected type sections only; skip catalogs"), which is good structure. However, the skill has no local bundle files and all four references live in a sibling skill directory ("../ipollowork-design-studio/references/"), which is fragile and unverifiable from this bundle, and the body has no section headers — matching 'good structure; minor organization gaps' rather than the fully clean anchor at 5.

Specificity

"Create or edit articles and reports in the current iPolloWork Design session" names the domain and exactly two concrete actions (create, edit), matching the anchor for 1-2 concrete actions. It does not list several specific actions (e.g., copy edits, theme changes, asset work), so it does not reach 4.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (create or edit articles and reports), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance; 'in the current iPolloWork Design session' only weakly implies when. Per the rubric, a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness at 3.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural nouns like "articles", "reports", "create", and "edit" are present, but common variations users would say (write, draft, blog post, document, copy-edit, publish) are absent. This fits 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms' rather than the good-coverage anchor at 4.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"articles and reports in the current iPolloWork Design session" carves out a clear product-specific niche with minimal conflict risk, but without explicit trigger phrases it could still be picked up by general writing/document skills — mostly distinct with minor overlap, matching anchor 4 rather than the distinct-trigger clarity of 5.