The body is information-dense and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but it repeats itself: the 'one directorial voice for the whole story/project' point recurs in the intro, Build step 2, and the Output Contract, and 'chain clips from accepted footage' restates several times. Not 3 due to this redundancy and overall length; not 1 because nothing is padded with basic explanations.

As an instruction-only skill it gives highly concrete, specific guidance: a 10-step Build Process, explicit field lists for clip and scene cards, a full classification taxonomy, a numbered Output Contract, and a worked Clip 01 example ('exit terminal and reach open car door'). Per the code-vs-instruction note, the absence of code is not penalized because the guidance is actionable and copy-ready. Not 2 because key details are not missing.

The Build Process is a clear 10-step sequence with an explicit validation/feedback gate at step 10 ('require the clip or final frame, record observed start/end state, reconcile canon, and only then compile the next prompt'), matching the anchor for clear sequence plus feedback loops. Not 2 because checkpoints and the reconciliation loop are explicit, not implicit.

The body uses a clear, consistent `[ref:...]` convention and explains conditional loading, which signals structure well; however the referenced files (sequence-project-state, prompt-compiler, directing-engine, continuity-qc, etc.) do not exist in references/, scripts/, or assets/, so the one-level-deep navigation is broken. Not 3 because the overview points to detailed materials that are absent; not 1 because the signaling convention and conditional-load intent show real organization rather than a monolithic wall.

Names a concrete domain ("Seedance 2.0 request") and one operation ("idea that must be divided into stateful clips"), but the description is dominated by trigger scenarios rather than a list of concrete actions, so it is not comprehensive. Not 3 because no multiple specific actions are enumerated; not 1 because the domain and a real operation are named.

The "when" is explicit and strong ("should be used when a Seedance 2.0 request is a long story..."), but the "what" is only weakly implied by "idea that must be divided into stateful clips" rather than clearly stating the skill's capabilities. Not 3 because it does not clearly answer both what AND when; not 1 because the explicit trigger guidance is present and the "what" is at least implied.

Lists relevant terms ("long story", "connected set of clips", "campaign sequence", "dense storyboard"), but mixes in jargon ("multi-generation scene", "continuation-ready plan", "stateful clips") and omits the most natural variations ("continue", "extend", "next part", "part two", "next scene") which appear only in the body, not the description. Not 3 due to missing common natural phrasings; not 1 because several genuine user terms are present.

The Seedance 2.0 scope plus sequence-specific triggers ("connected set of clips", "campaign sequence", "dense storyboard", "continuation-ready plan") carve a clear niche unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. Not 2 because the domain binding and specialized vocabulary make overlap with generic skills unlikely.