Conciseness

The ~23-line body assumes Claude's competence throughout: no concept explanations, no padding, every sentence carries operational content (e.g., "Read `references/run.md` before resolving the requested ref or starting anything"). Even the dense step-1 disclosure sentence is load-bearing requirement text, not filler, so it matches anchor 5 rather than anchor 4's "minor instances of over-explanation".

Actionability

Steps are concrete and delegating: named files to read ("Read `references/run.md`"), a named sibling skill to invoke ("invoke `ce-commit` for the polish changes"), and specific reporting outputs ("report the commit(s), the still-running server URL, and any residual blocker"). Per the rubric's code-vs-instruction note, absent code is not penalized, but phrases like "inspect only as needed, edit the in-scope surface" and "use a browser capability available in the active harness" leave the exact action to judgment, which is the minor gap that keeps this at anchor 4 instead of 5.

Workflow Clarity

The five-step Run sequence has explicit checkpoints and stop conditions: ask live-or-traditional "once, before any server starts", "Wait for observations. ... Do not start a review pass", the feedback loop of iterate/hot-reload/inspect, and explicit termination criteria in the Done section (every fix reflected or reported as blocked; blocker ends the run with resume evidence). It exceeds anchor 4 because validation and closure conditions are explicit rather than implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a lean router: it signals exactly which reference owns what ("`references/live-start.md`; it owns preconditions, install, the endpoint, and the URL handoff"; "`references/run.md` ... owns existing-worktree safety, dev-server discovery ..."), and all referenced files exist in the bundle. Scored against the actual bundle, references chain two levels from SKILL.md (run.md routes onward to dev-server-*.md and launch-json-schema.md; live-start.md routes to live-loop.md, live-remote.md, and install-riffrec.md), which is more depth than the anchor-5 "one-level-deep" pattern, so anchor 4 fits.

Specificity

"Polish a working feature through user-directed live browser feedback" names the domain, the concrete action, and the mechanism (live browser feedback), which fully covers this single-purpose skill. It stays at 4 rather than 5 because it does not enumerate several distinct actions (the anchor-5 pattern), and at 4 rather than 3 because the action and mechanism are concrete and comprehensive for the skill's narrow scope rather than generic.

Completeness

Both parts are explicit: the what ("Polish a working feature through user-directed live browser feedback") and the when ("Use when a functional feature needs focused UX refinement before shipping"). The when-clause is a concrete, specific trigger phrase, matching the anchor-5 example structure; anchor 4 would require the when to be less explicit than it is here.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms a user would say are present: "polish", "UX refinement", "working feature", "before shipping". A few natural variations are missing (e.g., "UI", "interface", "visual" or "polish the UI" phrasings), which fits anchor 4; it exceeds anchor 3 because the keywords that exist are natural user phrasings, not jargon.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear (post-feature UX polish driven by live user feedback) and unlikely to trigger for unrelated skills. It is not 5 because the description does not mention the live voice/draw mode, so a user asking for "polish" could plausibly collide with broader review or UI-improvement skills; it is well above anchor 3's generic overlap.