Conciseness

The body is dense and table-driven with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows — layout and style galleries use one-line entries, and the workflow uses terse imperative steps. Minor trimming is possible: the "Full definitions: references/..." pointers appear twice (once after each gallery, again in the References section), and the References section largely restates paths already given inline. This matches anchor 4 rather than 5 because of that duplication; it is well above anchor 3 since there is no padded explanation.

Actionability

The guidance is concrete throughout: exact filenames (source.md, analysis.md, structured-content.md, prompts/infographic.md), specific tools (write_file, clarify, image_generate), explicit mappings (landscape→16:9, 16:9→landscape), backup naming with timestamp patterns, and slug rules. It falls short of anchor 5 only because the actual prompt-assembly mechanics (how layout/style definitions are merged into base-prompt.md) are delegated to reference files rather than shown — acceptable, but leaves a minor gap versus copy-paste-ready completeness.

Workflow Clarity

Seven clearly sequenced steps each state their inputs and outputs, with decision points (keyword shortcut check, language question conditional on source≠user language) and an explicit failure recovery (auto-retry once on image generation failure). It matches anchor 4 rather than 5 because there are no verification checkpoints after generation — e.g., no step to check the output image or prompt file before reporting success.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references, all of which exist in the bundle: 21 verified files in references/layouts/, 21 in references/styles/, plus analysis-framework.md, structured-content-template.md, and base-prompt.md. Detailed material is properly split out, each reference is named with its purpose, and navigation (galleries → per-layout/style files → step-specific references) is easy.

Specificity

The description "Infographics: 21 layouts x 21 styles" names the domain and quantifies its two dimensions, but contains no concrete action verbs — it never says whether the skill creates, generates, or analyzes infographics. This matches 'names the domain but actions are minimal or generic' rather than score 3, which requires 1-2 concrete actions; it is above score 1 because the layout/style counts are concrete rather than pure abstraction.

Completeness

The description has a vague 'what' — "Infographics: 21 layouts x 21 styles" describes the option space but not what the skill does with it — and there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 by the rubric guidelines. Score 2 fits: vague 'what' and no 'when'; it does not reach score 3 because the 'what' never states an action to be considered clear.

Trigger Term Quality

Trigger terms are "Infographics", "信息图", and "可视化" — the natural Chinese phrases a user would say, plus the core English noun. However, common variations are missing: no English synonyms like "visual summary", "information graphic", or "infographic image". This sits between anchor 3 (some relevant keywords, missing variations) and anchor 4 (good coverage, a few missing), closer to 3 because English trigger coverage is thin.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Infographics" is a clear niche with distinct triggers, but "可视化" (visualization) is a broad term that overlaps with general dataviz/charting skills, creating minor conflict risk with closely related skills. This matches anchor 4 rather than 5, and is well above anchor 3 since the layout×style framing is unmistakably this skill's.