Conciseness

The body is lean and directive throughout — e.g., "one numbered paragraph per frame, 4–8 frames for most features... never implementation" and "Only numbered paragraphs become frames" — with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows (git worktrees, PRs, and scaffolding are used, not taught). Matches the 'every token earns its place' anchor; a 4 would require trimmable over-explanation, which is absent.

Actionability

Concrete, executable commands dominate the operational phases — `git worktree add ../_worktrees/ipollowork-<flow-id> -b feat/<flow-id> origin/dev`, `pnpm fraimz scaffold <flow-id>`, `gh pr create --base dev --fill`, `pnpm fraimz --flow <flow-id> --pr` — plus an exact file path (`evals/voiceovers/<flow-id>.md`) and a copy-paste script-format template. Not 5 due to minor gaps: how `<flow-id>` is derived, what constitutes user approval, and which questions to ask in Phase 1 are left open. Not 3 because the guidance given is genuinely executable, not pseudocode.

Workflow Clarity

A clear four-phase sequence with continuously numbered steps (1–7), an explicit gating checkpoint ("The contract: no code until the script is approved", "Do not renumber or reword paragraphs after this without re-approval"), and explicit validation with a feedback loop: "drive the demo against the real app, repair, and re-run until every frame passes" and "the runner fails any flow whose narration drifts from it". Matches the top anchor's sequence + explicit validation + error-recovery loop.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent), and nothing inlined belongs in a separate file — the body is a compact process overview with clear section headers. The "Source of truth" section provides well-signaled, one-level-deep pointers (`evals/runner/voiceover.mjs`, the reference script, the `fraimz` skill) with no nesting. Navigation is trivial; matches the top anchor for a self-contained, well-organized skill.

Specificity

Names several concrete, sequenced actions — "approve the narration BEFORE any code", "build on a fresh worktree until the demo holds", "open the PR with the proof on it" — with only minor gaps (e.g., drafting/iterating on the script is implied via trigger phrasing rather than stated as an action). Not 5 because the leading keyword string reads as search terms rather than a comprehensive enumeration of capability actions; not 3 because coverage clearly exceeds 1-2 actions.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: what — "The whole demo-driven journey — approve the narration BEFORE any code, then build on a fresh worktree... and open the PR with the proof on it"; when — "Use when a feature request arrives, or when the user runs /voiceover". Both are concrete and explicit, matching the top anchor; a 4 would require a vague or only weakly specific 'when', which is not the case.

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural-language coverage with synonyms and variations: "voice-over", "demo script", "voiceover instead of PRD", "voiceover-first development", "align on the demo", "script the demo", "ship a feature demo-first", plus the explicit slash-command form "when the user runs /voiceover". Matches the anchor's standard of including synonyms and command extensions; nothing obviously missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The voiceover/narration niche is clearly distinct ("voiceover-first development", "approve the narration"), but phrases like "ship a feature demo-first" and "align on the demo" carry minor overlap risk with general feature-development or demo-presentation skills. Not 5 because the broad 'feature request' framing could compete with ordinary feature-build skills; not 3 because the core narration/voiceover triggers are unmistakably niche.