Conciseness

The body is dense with non-obvious project rules (evidence labeling, NEEDS_INPUT policy, authorization gates, exact ROAS/ROI formulas) and never explains concepts Claude already knows. However, the Cross-discipline ad-spend paragraph and the Next Best Skill routing/termination prose run long and could be trimmed or pushed to a reference, matching 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed'.

Actionability

Seven numbered steps each carry a per-step template link and precise executable rules ("sum to 100%", "ROAS = attributed revenue / spend", contingency and evidence-classification policies), and the Example block shows a complete output shape — mostly executable guidance. It falls short of the top anchor because the only fully worked inline example is the NEEDS_INPUT refusal path, and the referenced templates use unfilled $[X] placeholders, so no completed numeric allocation example exists anywhere in the bundle.

Workflow Clarity

The Instructions section gives a clearly sequenced 7-step workflow with per-step gates (a rate without a compatible source 'stays NEEDS_INPUT'), and the 'Done when' contract is an explicit validation checklist (sums to 100%, every metric labeled with formula/refs/evidence window, named scenario or NEEDS_INPUT with an evidence-request plan). The NEEDS_INPUT evidence-request loop provides the error-recovery feedback path, matching the top anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is good: the workflow and policies stay inline while templates, benchmarks, and scenario blocks live one level deep in references/templates.md (verified to exist with all seven linked Step sections, clearly signaled with section anchors). It is not the top anchor because many links (skill-contract.md, state-model.md, CONNECTORS.md, five sibling SKILL.md paths) point outside the bundle via ../../../ paths that cannot be verified here, and the routing/contract sections could themselves be split out.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete outputs — "tier/platform/content allocation table, ROI and CPM/CPE projections, scenario comparisons, and mid-campaign reallocation moves" — giving comprehensive, specific coverage of the skill's capabilities rather than vague domain language. It matches the 'multiple specific concrete actions; comprehensive coverage' anchor, and is not one level down where only several actions are listed with minor gaps.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: 'what' ("produces a tier/platform/content allocation table, ROI and CPM/CPE projections...") and 'when' ("Use when the user asks to...") with concrete quoted trigger phrases, plus an explicit negative boundary ("Not for building the full campaign plan — use campaign-planner"). This clearly matches the top anchor; the level below (when present but less explicit) does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

It quotes three natural user phrasings ("allocate my influencer budget", "optimize spend across tiers", "compare budget scenarios") plus Chinese synonyms ("达人预算分配/投放预算优化"), which is good keyword coverage. It stops short of the comprehensive anchor because common variations like "split my budget", "budget breakdown", or "how much should I spend" are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The influencer-budget niche is clear and it explicitly disambiguates from the closest sibling ("Not for building the full campaign plan — use campaign-planner"), but "ROI and CPM/CPE projections" and "mid-campaign reallocation" leave minor overlap risk with related skills (e.g., an roi-calculator or performance-analyzer) that are not disambiguated in the description. This fits 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills' better than the minimal-conflict anchor.