Conciseness

The 68-line body is pure imperative instruction with zero conceptual padding — it never explains what ffmpeg, GSAP ScrollTrigger, Lenis, or IntersectionObserver are, it just directs their use ("run `ffprobe` for duration, dimensions, frame rate, codec, and size"). Every line instructs; dense lists like the layer-analysis checklist and Quality Bar are deliverable specs, not filler, so it matches the lean anchor.

Actionability

Contains a copy-paste-ready executable block (ffprobe JSON output + mkdir + ffmpeg fps=1 frame extraction) and concrete, specific guidance everywhere else: exact tool names ("GSAP ScrollTrigger, Lenis, Framer Motion/Motion One, Three.js/WebGL, `video.currentTime`"), a concrete anti-vagueness rule ("Avoid vague phrases like 'make it beautiful', 'similar animation'"), and named output formats for each mode. Per the rubric's code-vs-instruction note, an instruction-only skill with guidance this actionable meets the top anchor.

Workflow Clarity

The 6-step workflow is clearly sequenced (locate → inspect → analyze → plan assets → write → verify) and ends with an explicit verification step ("Check that all asset paths/URLs in the prompt exist or are clearly marked as placeholders", "confirm files are non-empty and representative"), plus error-avoidance in step 1 ("ask for the exact file or URL before inventing details"). Falls short of the anchor-5 example, which contains an explicit feedback loop ("If errors: fix and re-validate") — here the verify step says what to check but not what to do when a check fails.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a lean overview and the heavy material — the full prompt template — is split into `references/superprompt-template.md` (verified to exist, 87 lines), referenced exactly once and one level deep with a clear usage condition: "Read `references/superprompt-template.md` when writing the final prompt from scratch or when the user asks for the 'full detailed prompt.'" Sections (Goal, Workflow, Output Modes, Quality Bar, References) make navigation trivial.

Specificity

"Turn a reference video into a super detailed recreation or inspiration prompt" plus the enumerated capabilities ("analyze the design, UI, animations, transitions, scroll interactions, typography, colors, assets, WebGL/Three.js, storytelling, section-by-section behavior") list several concrete actions with only minor gaps. Not a 5 because the deliverable is really one action (produce a superprompt) with an analysis list attached, rather than multiple distinct concrete actions like the anchor-5 example's extract/fill/merge/convert.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: the what ("Turn a reference video into a super detailed recreation or inspiration prompt") and the when ("Use when the user provides, mentions, uploads, links, or points to a video and asks to... or to create a prompt/article that recreates the page, app, interaction, or motion system"). Both are concrete and match the anchor-5 example's structure.

Trigger Term Quality

Strong natural coverage: "provides, mentions, uploads, links, or points to a video", "recreation", "animations", "transitions", "scroll interactions", "typography", "colors", "recreates the page". Missing a few natural terms users would say — no file extensions (.mp4, .mov, .webm) and no synonyms like "screen recording" or "demo video" — which is what the anchor-5 example ("PDF files, PDFs, forms, document extraction, .pdf") includes.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche — video-to-recreation-prompt — with triggers conditioned on a video being present, e.g. "points to a video and asks to analyze the design, UI, animations". Minimal conflict risk; the only conceivable overlap is with a non-video design-analysis skill, and the video conditioning disambiguates it.