Conciseness

Most content is dense domain data Claude would not know (bid modifiers, frequency caps, CVR benchmarks), but there is real fat: the Capabilities section and intro repeat the frontmatter description, budget-allocation guidance appears three times (Workflow 2, its own table, and again inside every example), and the ~10-line promotional "About this skill" footer earns nothing for the task. This is 'mostly efficient but could be tightened', not the severely padded anchor 2.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is highly concrete: exact day windows, budget percentages, frequency caps per platform, platform-specific exclusion steps ("Google: Audience Manager → create suppression list", "Meta: Custom Audience → exclude from ad set"), and three complete worked funnels covering e-commerce, B2B SaaS, and frequency management. It falls short of anchor 5 only through minor gaps like "Allocate by platform based on where audience spends time" and "Use email-based matching" with no how; it is clearly above anchor 3, which would require pseudocode-level vagueness.

Workflow Clarity

The five workflows are clearly sequenced with numbered steps and concrete values, and Example 3 includes a genuine feedback loop ("If >8: reduce budgets or tighten audience windows; If <3: may be under-serving"), while the platform table surfaces minimum-audience-size checkpoints. It misses anchor 5 because most design workflows lack explicit validation checkpoints (e.g., no step to verify audience sizes against platform minimums before launch); this is a design skill, not a destructive/batch operation, so the cap-at-3 rule does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned with clear headers (above anchor 2's 'minimal structure'), but it is a single ~310-line monolith with no bundle files at all — the five large benchmark tables and three full worked examples clearly belong in references/ files, matching anchor 3's 'content that should be separate is inline'. It cannot score higher because nothing is split out and there are no references to signal.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete, domain-specific capabilities — "Multi-stage retargeting funnel design with audience windows, sequential messaging, frequency capping, and exclusion lists" — covering the domain comprehensively, matching the anchor for multiple specific concrete actions. Re-reading anchor 4 ('minor gaps in coverage') does not fit better, as all core retargeting functions are named.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the "what" is the capability list, and the "when" is a concrete "Use when building retargeting funnels, remarketing sequences, audience segmentation by recency, or cross-platform retargeting coordination" clause with specific trigger phrases. This directly matches the anchor-5 example structure; the anchor-4 ('when could be more explicit') fit is clearly worse.

Trigger Term Quality

Triggers include the key synonyms "retargeting funnels" and "remarketing sequences" plus "audience segmentation by recency" and "cross-platform retargeting coordination" — good natural-term coverage. It falls short of anchor 5 because common user phrasings like "cart abandonment", "bring back visitors", or platform-specific terms (Google/Meta ads) are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Retargeting/remarketing is a clear niche with distinct triggers, but the trigger "audience segmentation by recency" could pull in general audience-segmentation or broader paid-media planning tasks that aren't retargeting, giving minor overlap risk with closely related marketing skills. Not anchor 5 ('minimal conflict risk'), and clearly above anchor 3's broader overlap.