Conciseness

The host contracts (show_widget, edit_widget, setContext limits, the opensquillaVisualize state API) are novel and worth their tokens, but key rules are repeated in different words — "registration is not verification" appears as "`inline-ready` means the bytes were registered, not that a browser rendered them", "Never infer successful interaction from registration", and "A retry does not verify the new version's behavior by itself" — and the restore section restates the validate-before-render rule several times. General accessibility advice ("touch-friendly targets, readable labels", wrapping controls) also pads what Claude already knows, so the body is mostly efficient but could be noticeably tightened; this is more than the 4 anchor's 'minor instances' and far from the 2 anchor's pervasive padding.

Actionability

Guidance is copy-paste ready: exact tool signatures ("show_widget(title="short_title", widget_code="...")", "open_workspace_preview(path="relative/path.html", presentation="inline")"), an executable state-restoration snippet with await/getState/setState, edit_widget old_string→new_string uniqueness rules, and hard numeric constraints (8 KiB JSON, 1 MiB file, 16,384 code units, nesting depth 8, 360 px check). These cover the common create, update, restore, and file-backed cases, matching the 5 anchor.

Workflow Clarity

The implicit sequence (choose visual → read guidance modules → build fragment → publish with marker → verify) is coherent, with explicit validation checkpoints ("check key calculations with named input/output cases and check all control handlers", "inspect the published version in the actual host at desktop and narrow widths", "Verify a non-default selection survives both canvas reload and a session round trip") and a clear error-recovery feedback loop ("If publication returns a correctable HTML input error, fix that specific problem and publish again; do not blindly repeat the same bytes"). This is not a destructive or batch operation, so no cap applies, and it exceeds the 4 anchor's 'most checkpoints present'.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clear overview with well-signaled, one-level-deep references — all 11 referenced files (guidance-base and seven topic modules plus three optional examples) exist in references/ and each has a when-to-read description. The gap: "Source hashes, adaptation records and license text are bundled in `upstream-guidance.json` and `LICENSE.generative-frame.txt`" cites two files that are not present in the bundle, a minor organization/navigation gap that keeps this below the 5 anchor.

Specificity

"Create interactive diagrams, simulations, charts, and small tools" names several concrete artifact types, but a single verb covers them all and "small tools" is generic, leaving minor coverage gaps (e.g., mockups and dashboards from the body are absent). This matches the 4 anchor (several specific actions, minor gaps) rather than 5, which expects comprehensive multi-action coverage, and exceeds 3, which allows only 1-2 concrete actions.

Completeness

Both parts are present: a clear what ("Create interactive diagrams, simulations, charts, and small tools directly inside conversation") and an explicit "Use when manipulating a visual helps explain, compare, or explore a question" trigger clause, so it clears the 3-cap for missing 'Use when'. The 'when' is a condition rather than the concrete trigger phrases of the 5 anchor, so it fits 4 ('when' could be more specific).

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms like "diagrams", "simulations", "charts", "visual" and "interactive" appear, but common variations users would say ("plot", "graph", "dashboard", "mockup", "prototype", "calculator") are missing. Good keyword coverage with a few natural terms missing fits 4; it falls short of 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The "directly inside conversation" framing and the interactive-manipulation trigger carve a clear niche, but "charts" (and to a lesser degree "diagrams") overlaps with generic charting or data-visualization skills. Mostly distinct with minor overlap risk against closely related skills fits 4 rather than 5's minimal-conflict niche.