Conciseness

The body is dense and directive throughout, assumes Claude's competence, and explains no general concepts; nearly every token carries instruction. Not 5 because decorative metaphor ('Shipwrights loft the hull's lines', 'three reskins are wallpaper') adds tokens beyond what the instructions need. Not 3 because there is no unnecessary explanation or padding — only minor flourishes.

Actionability

Concrete, specific guidance throughout: 'no DOM, no I/O, no framework', 'one button per scenario', 'One route, three variants that differ in structure', 'Push the artifact to a loft/<name> branch'. Per the scoring note, absence of code in an instruction-only skill is not penalized; but there is no worked example of the shell or variant structure, leaving minor gaps between directive and execution, so not 5.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is coherent and complete (detect a stall → choose a fork → build under the discipline → captain reacts → revise in-session → fold the answer → completion definition), with a completion checklist and an explicit revision feedback loop ('Expect the first shape to be argued with: revise on the branch within the same session'). Not 5 because there is no explicit checkpoint verifying the artifact actually loads/runs before presenting it to the captain, and the fold-the-answer location choice is left open.

Progressive Disclosure

A single self-contained SKILL.md (~65 lines) with no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories; no reference in the body points to a nonexistent file, and nothing in the body clearly belongs in a separate file. Sections are well-organized and easy to navigate, matching the simple-skill provision for a top score.

Specificity

Names concrete artifact forms ('a pure logic module in a clickable shell, or structurally different UI variants behind one route') and concrete outcomes ('the artifact never docks'), but the recording/folding side of the process is only alluded to abstractly ('the answer folds into the decision'), leaving minor gaps in coverage. Not 3 because it lists several specific actions rather than only 1-2; not 5 because coverage is not comprehensive.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('answer a design question that prose cannot settle by building a throwaway artifact: a pure logic module in a clickable shell, or structurally different UI variants behind one route') and when ('Use when a design question stalls in words, when a navigator map carries a loft ticket, or when a spec discussion reaches "we would have to see it"') with three concrete trigger phrases. Clearly matches the top anchor; the 'when' is fully explicit, so not 4.

Trigger Term Quality

Contains natural phrases users would say in context ('a design question stalls in words', 'a spec discussion reaches "we would have to see it"'), giving good keyword coverage. Not 5: common synonyms like prototype, mockup, spike, or wireframe are missing, and 'a navigator map carries a loft ticket' is internal jargon rather than a natural user phrase.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche — settling stalled design questions with throwaway runnable artifacts — with highly specific triggers, so it is unlikely to fire for the wrong skill. Re-checked anchor 4 ('minor overlap risk with closely related skills'): the triggers are distinctive enough that even minor overlap does not apply, so it fits the top anchor.