Mostly efficient and high-signal (exact commands, tsconfig, tables of pt sizes and pixel dimensions that are genuinely non-obvious), but the 'Authoring principles' section ('One idea per slide', 'Title, not label', 'Bullets are not the default') restates presentation-design wisdom Claude already knows and the opening paragraph recapitulates the description. Not a 3 because it could be tightened; not a 1 because there is no condescending library/format primer and most tokens earn their place.

Copy-paste-ready throughout — "uv run scripts/dump_text.py input.pptx --notes > input.txt", "uv add python-pptx lxml Pillow", a complete tsconfig.json, and the QA grep one-liner. Not below 3 because the guidance is concrete and executable rather than descriptive.

Clear sequence ("read → plan slide-by-slide → edit/create → validate → visual QA") plus a QA checklist with explicit validation commands and a feedback loop ("If any of these fail, fix and re-run — don't paper over") on document/XML operations. Not below 3 because validation checkpoints and retry guidance are explicit, exactly the fragile-operation pattern the rubric rewards.

The structure is well-signaled and one-level-deep — a 'Where each detail lives' map pointing to create.md / edit.md / read.md — but those three referenced detail files are absent from the bundle (only scripts/ exists), so the disclosure path is partially broken. Not a 3 because the actual bundle does not contain the files the overview points to; not a 1 because references are clearly signaled, not deeply nested, and inline content is appropriately kept in the overview.

Lists many concrete actions — "authoring slide decks… extracting text or structure… filling a .pptx template with values; converting a deck to PDF or images; splitting or merging decks; inspecting slides, layouts, masters, tables, images, charts, speaker notes, or comments" — matching the multi-action anchor. Not below 3 because nothing is abstract; not above because 3 is the scale ceiling. The imperative "Use this skill" is the standard trigger form used in the good examples, not the penalized second-person "You can use this".

Clearly answers both 'what' (the enumerated capabilities) and 'when' ("Use this skill whenever a Microsoft PowerPoint (.pptx) file is being produced, opened, transformed, or read" plus an explicit "Trigger on…" clause). Not below 3 because an explicit trigger clause is present; not above because 3 is the ceiling.

Explicit natural terms users would say — "Trigger on words like 'deck', 'slides', 'presentation', 'pitch deck', 'keynote'… or any filename ending in .pptx" — giving good coverage of common phrasings. Not below 3 because the variations are exactly the words a user would naturally utter.

A clear .pptx niche reinforced by a negative-trigger clause — "Do NOT trigger when the primary deliverable is a Word document, spreadsheet, PDF report, HTML site, or Google Slides API call" — making conflicts with adjacent skills unlikely. Not below 3 because the boundary is explicit.