Conciseness

The ~27-line body is entirely directive with zero padding — e.g. "define: startup, active window, recovery, cancellation rules, resource cost, contact shape, damage/posture outcome, cooldown, and feedback" — and explains nothing Claude already knows; "Treat combat as explicit state machines... rather than animation-driven guesses" states a principle rather than teaching a concept. Every token earns its place, matching the lean-and-efficient anchor.

Actionability

The guidance is concrete and checkable — exact fields to specify, exact validity gates ("Require direction, range, phase, and state validity before resolving an outcome"), and an enumerated test matrix ("early/late timing, wrong direction, out-of-range contact... pause/frame step, equip swaps, and repeated inputs") — but it contains no worked example (e.g. a sample frame-data table or state-machine spec), so it falls at 'mostly executable; minor gaps' rather than fully copy-paste ready. For an instruction-only skill the checklists are genuinely actionable, which keeps it clearly above level 3's pseudocode/incomplete anchor.

Workflow Clarity

The section order (specify → authoritative outcomes → tune → test deterministically → verify in play) is a coherent design-to-release lifecycle with a genuine validation checkpoint in "Verify in play": "Confirm that player intent, contact feedback, health/posture changes, sound/VFX, and target state agree." However, the sequence is implicit in section ordering rather than explicitly stepped, and there is no error-recovery loop (what to do when verification fails), which fits 'clear sequence with most checkpoints; minor validation gaps' rather than level 5. No destructive/batch-operation cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no references/, scripts/, or assets/ bundle present, and each concern is cleanly split into its own section (Specify / Outcomes / Tune / Test / Verify). Per the rubric's simple-skill guideline, well-organized sections alone justify the top anchor here.

Specificity

It lists several specific actions — "Design, implement, tune, or test readable tactical action combat for web games" — plus a rich enumeration of sub-topics ("attack timing, guard and dodge windows, hit contact, posture, lock-on, weapons, boss phases"). The verbs are a touch more generic than level 5's 'extract text, fill forms, merge' style and no concrete operation like 'define frame-data tables' is named, which places it at 'several specific actions; minor gaps in coverage' — clearly above level 3, where only 1–2 concrete actions are given.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: the 'what' is "Design, implement, tune, or test readable tactical action combat for web games" and the 'when' is the concrete "Use for attack timing, guard and dodge windows, ... boss phases, combat feedback, and deterministic combat tests" clause. This mirrors the level-5 anchor's two-sentence what-plus-when structure exactly; nothing is left merely implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Trigger terms are natural and domain-authentic — a user asking about combat work would plausibly say "attack timing", "dodge windows", "boss phases", "lock-on", "combat feedback". Coverage is good but a few common community phrases are absent (hitbox, parry, i-frames, frame data, combos), matching 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' rather than level 5's comprehensive synonym set.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"readable tactical action combat for web games" carves out a clear niche, and every trigger term (guard/dodge windows, posture, lock-on, boss phases, deterministic combat tests) points uniquely at this skill rather than generic game-dev or testing skills. Conflict risk is minimal, matching the clear-niche anchor; level 4 would require plausible overlap with a closely related skill, which is not the case.