Conciseness

The body is dense with non-obvious operational knowledge (subject "at least about 1/3 of the frame height", "hold it about letters / 15 + 1.5 s", "roughly ≤ 300 ms/frame", the 30-minute timebox) and never explains basics Claude already knows, so it sits above a 3. It is not a 5 because there is real duplication: determinism rules appear in section 3 and again in the section 7 failure table, frame-budgeting advice appears twice in section 4, and the rhetorical opening paragraph could be trimmed to one sentence.

Actionability

Commands are copy-paste ready with concrete flags and arguments: the capture invocation (`node "$SKILL_DIR/scripts/capture.mjs" <project_dir> --page index.html --fps 30 ...`), the encode string (`-c:v libx264 -pix_fmt yuv420p -crf 18 ...`), the raw-video pipe format, the concat-join workflow with `chunks.txt`, `contact_sheet.sh` and `check_video.sh` call patterns, and the clip-extraction ffmpeg line, plus a complete seeded-RNG snippet. Specific examples cover the common cases, matching anchor 5; the only unshown invocation (`audio_check.sh`/`sync_check.py`) is a negligible gap.

Workflow Clarity

The workflow is a clearly sequenced pipeline (setup → read guides → spec → deterministic timeline → capture/encode → look at frames → verify) with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: "Repeat this loop at least twice", smoke-test before long runs, `check_video.sh` failing on mismatches, and VERIFY.md requiring pass/fail plus timestamped pixel evidence per must-have ("Do not write 'checked' for anything you did not look at"). This matches anchor 5's explicit validation, error-recovery loops, and checklists; a 4 would lack some of these checkpoints.

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is strong: the body is an overview workflow that routes to eight reference guides via a "Read when the request has…" trigger table (all files exist, one level deep), and helper scripts are invoked by path. It drops below a 5 because of minor gaps: `requirements.txt` is cited for Python audio dependencies but does not exist in the bundle, and the `../../docs/sn-code-video.md` links point outside the skill folder (honestly flagged as repository-only, but dead in a standalone install).

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions ("Create and revise code-driven videos", "deterministic frame capture, visual review, and MP4 verification") with a comprehensive set of named technologies ("Canvas, SVG, HTML/CSS, Three.js, Remotion, Manim, or p5.js") covering the whole domain. It exceeds the 'several specific actions' bar of a 4 because the actions plus tool inventory give full coverage of the skill's capabilities.

Completeness

Both questions are answered explicitly: the 'what' ("Create and revise code-driven videos ... including sound, deterministic frame capture, visual review, and MP4 verification") and the 'when' ("Use for rendered explainers, procedural animations, motion graphics, promos, and music-synchronized films"), plus concrete negative triggers ("not for general web apps, scroll-driven HTML stories, or footage generation with video models"). This matches the anchor 5 example's structure of explicit what + when with trigger phrases, going beyond the merely adequate 'when' of a 4.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases are present and domain-accurate ("rendered explainers, procedural animations, motion graphics, promos, and music-synchronized films"), matching how users would phrase such requests. It falls short of a 5 because common phrasings like "animation", "music video", or "intro/title sequence" are absent, leaving a few natural synonyms uncovered.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves out a clear niche (code-driven video production) with distinct triggers and explicitly disambiguates adjacent domains ("not for general web apps, scroll-driven HTML stories, or footage generation with video models"), which prevents overlap with general web-dev and generative-media skills. Conflict risk is minimal, matching anchor 5 rather than the 'minor overlap risk' of a 4.