The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — it gives field lists, exact rules, and an exact fallback phrase without explaining what Seedance or continuity is. The only mild padding is the philosophical "Intent" line, but it stays brief, so it earns the top anchor. Not a 2 because there is no sustained unnecessary explanation.

Concrete executable guidance throughout: an exact required-input field list, a verbatim user-facing message, a copy-paste command (`python scripts/extract_last_frame.py <take>`), enumerated continuation types, and a numbered output contract. As an instruction-only skill the absence of larger code blocks is not penalized because the guidance is specific and actionable. Not a 2 because details are complete, not pseudocode.

A clear sequenced workflow (input gate -> classify continuation type -> apply scene/canon rules -> emit output contract) with explicit validation checkpoints such as `observation_confidence`, `requires_user_confirmation`, drift detection, and the repair-before-continuing feedback loop. Not a 2 because validation and error-recovery checkpoints are explicit, not implicit.

The body is well-sectioned and defers detail via clearly signaled `[ref:...]` markers, but no `references/`, `scripts/`, or `assets/` bundles exist, so those references (and `scripts/extract_last_frame.py`) dangle and cannot be navigated. This fits the middle anchor: structure and signaled references are present, but content that should live in separate files is not actually split into resolvable files. Not a 3 because the one-level-deep references do not point to real files; not a 1 because the overview itself is organized and the references are explicitly signaled rather than nested.

Lists multiple concrete actions — "continue, extend, make the next part, repair the tail, bridge between known frames, re-anchor drift, or create a successor prompt" — matching the anchor that lists several specific concrete actions rather than vague language.

The "This skill should be used when a Seedance 2.0 user asks to..." clause explicitly answers both what (the listed continuation actions) and when (the user trigger), satisfying the top anchor for explicit triggers. Not a 2 because the 'when' is explicit, not merely implied.

Natural user phrasings like "continue", "extend", "make the next part", and "repair the tail" give good coverage of terms a Seedance user would actually say, matching the top anchor. Not a 2 because common variations are present rather than only a few.

Scoping to "Seedance 2.0" plus niche continuation triggers (tail repair, re-anchor drift, bridge between known frames) carves a clear niche unlikely to fire for unrelated skills, matching the top anchor. Not a 2 because the domain and triggers are specific enough to avoid overlap.