Conciseness

The body does not explain concepts Claude already knows, but it is noticeably redundant: the install command list appears in full twice (step 0 and 'Missing dependency behavior'), and three sections — 'Define the delivery contract', 'Output style rules', and 'Recommended response shape' — restate overlapping output guidance. This fits anchor 3 (mostly efficient, could be tightened) rather than anchor 4, whose 'minor instances' understate this level of duplication.

Actionability

Environment probing, install fallbacks, and route selection are fully executable ('python3 scripts/ensure_publication_tooling.py --require pubfig --json', 'uv pip install pubfig'), and the runnable artifact code lives in well-mapped reference files. However, the body itself never shows a runnable snippet for the primary generation task — 'one pubfig call + one save_figure(...)' and 'batch_export(...)' are named but never demonstrated — leaving minor gaps versus anchor 5's copy-paste-ready coverage of common cases.

Workflow Clarity

The workflow is an explicitly numbered 8-step sequence (0-7) with validation checkpoints throughout: probe → auto-install → re-probe → continue/degrade, an evidence-contract gate ('Do not create a paper-ready plot while the unit of analysis, missing-cell handling, or error-bar basis is unresolved'), a concrete QA step, and a revise loop with specific falsifiable changes. This matches anchor 5's explicit validation, feedback loops, and checklists.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a genuine overview with a well-annotated Resources section pointing to 13 one-level-deep files, all of which exist in the bundle (references/, scripts/, source-guides/ verified on disk). It falls short of anchor 5 because the closing pointer 'For prompt-shaped examples, see examples/' references a directory that does not exist in the bundle, a dangling navigation link.

Specificity

The description enumerates several concrete capabilities — 'choosing the right chart for results', 'figure + companion table for a results section', 'Excel sheet turned into publication-ready LaTeX', 'reviewed and upgraded' — with minor gaps (it never states the core generate/export/QA actions as capabilities). It lists several specific actions with minor coverage gaps, matching anchor 4 rather than anchor 3 (which expects only 1-2 actions) or anchor 5 (comprehensive action coverage including export and QA).

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit and concrete ('This skill should be used when the user asks for...') with six trigger scenarios, and the 'what' is present but embedded inside the when-clauses ('paper-ready pubfig or pubtab workflow', 'publication-ready LaTeX') rather than stated as a standalone capability sentence. This matches anchor 4 (both present, one could be more explicit) rather than anchor 5 (both clearly and separately stated).

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrases are present: 'publication-quality scientific figure', 'paper-ready', 'Excel sheet', 'LaTeX', 'results section', 'companion table'. A few common terms users would naturally say are missing ('plot my results', 'graph', '.xlsx'), so it fits anchor 4 rather than the comprehensive synonym/extension coverage of anchor 5, but is well above anchor 3's 'missing common variations'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (publication-grade scientific figures and tables via pubfig/pubtab, Excel-to-LaTeX conversion) with distinct trigger vocabulary that generic dataviz or document skills would not claim. Minor overlap risk with general chart-creation skills keeps it at anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's minimal-conflict profile.