Conciseness

The body is dense and operational with no filler, but key points repeat: the requirement to load `figure-style` is stated in Step 0, §0, and again in §2 ("each runs its `panel_task` prompt, loads `figure-style` itself"), and "this is your own judgment, not an API call" / "no host runtime and no LLM API" each appear twice. This matches anchor 4 (efficient with minor over-explanation that could be trimmed); not 3 because there is no padded explanation of concepts Claude already knows.

Actionability

Mostly executable: the exec line for kernel.py, `pip install pillow matplotlib`, a concrete JSON outline example, and runnable snippets (`panel_task(...)` dict comprehension, the PIL crop loop in §3.5). Gaps: the §4 loop block is structured pseudocode rather than executable code, and helper arguments like `rules_path`, `min_floor`, `fig_label`, and the `review_schema()` fields are named but not specified, so the reader must consult kernel.py. Fits anchor 4 (mostly executable with minor gaps); not 5 because the core review loop is not copy-paste ready.

Workflow Clarity

Exemplary sequence (Step 0 → entry points → §1 outline → §2 render → §3 compose → §3.5 vision QA → §4 adversarial loop) with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: a pre-review crop inspection pass, a bounded loop ("max 3 rounds, floor 5→4→3"), explicit break conditions ("editor_verdict in {accept, minor_revision} and 0 BLOCKER and ≤2 MAJOR"), regression tracking via `prev_path`, regenerating only affected panels, a convergence signal, and an anti-patterns section. Matches anchor 5.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well-organized and references are one level deep and clearly signaled (`figure-composer/kernel.py` for code, `figure-style` for design rules, `paper-narrative` for paper-level ordering), with the heavy lifting correctly delegated to kernel.py rather than inlined. However, the bundle contains no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories, so the central `kernel.py` dependency cannot be verified as a real file — a minor organization gap that keeps this at anchor 4 rather than 5.

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions ("Compose one publication-grade multi-panel figure", "render each panel with `panel_task`", "tile + stamp letters with `compose_figure`", "adversarial composite self-review", "regen affected panels, ≤3 rounds") matching the comprehensive anchor 5, but "(you read the PNG)" is second-person voice, which the guidelines penalize by reducing specificity by 1.

Completeness

The "what" is clear and detailed, but there is no explicit "Use when..." clause for this skill; the "when" is only weakly implied through routing sentences about sibling skills ("For one standalone plot use `figure-style`; for whole-paper figure ordering use `paper-narrative`"). Per the judging guidelines, a missing 'Use when...' clause or equivalent caps completeness at 3, matching the anchor "clear 'what' but 'when' missing or only weakly implied".

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-term coverage ("multi-panel figure", "publication-grade", "plot", "figure") but leans on internal jargon ("label_budget", "Tier-1 outline_revisions / Tier-2 per-panel violations", "12-col grid") and misses common synonyms/extensions like "scientific figure", "composite figure", or ".png". Not 3 because several genuinely natural phrases are present; not 5 because synonyms and file extensions are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (composing one multi-panel publication figure) with explicit disambiguation from the two adjacent skills ("For one standalone plot use `figure-style`; for whole-paper figure ordering use `paper-narrative`"), which minimizes wrong-skill triggering. Matches the anchor for a clear niche with distinct triggers.