Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient but includes unnecessary padding: a long prose Data Sources section ("~1,000 credits/mo, no key needed", the striking-distance paragraph), an attribution aside — "(Impact×Confidence + funnel-stage scoring adapted from an external SEO-ops competitive analysis.)" — and explanation of concepts Claude already knows (BOFU/MOFU/TOFU funnel definitions, the four standard intent categories). Not a 2 because nearly every sentence carries operational content; not a 4 because several of these passages could clearly be trimmed or moved to instructions-detail.md.

Actionability

The body gives concrete, runnable commands (the suggest.py/firecrawl.py/pageviews.py invocations with flags), an explicit formula — "Opportunity = (Volume × Intent Value) / Difficulty, with Intent Value 1 / 1 / 2 / 3" — a defined save path, and an enforced quality bar ("every recommendation includes at least one specific number"). Not a 5 because the eight phases themselves are one-line directives whose executable detail is deferred to references, leaving minor gaps inline.

Workflow Clarity

The eight phases are explicitly sequenced and announced ("run eight phases and announce each as [Phase X/8: Name]"), with a 'Done when' contract serving as an end-of-run checklist and evidence-labeling rules (Measured/Calculated/Unknown, NOT_SCORED on unknown decision-critical inputs) acting as per-field checkpoints. Not a 5 because there are no explicit per-phase validation or fix-and-retry loops; this is a read-only research workflow, so the destructive-operation cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The SKILL.md is a genuine overview: detail is split into five real bundle files (instructions-detail.md, example-report.md, keyword-intent-taxonomy.md, topic-cluster-templates.md, keyword-prioritization-framework.md — all present in references/), each linked one level deep with descriptive labels in the Reference Materials section, plus a dedicated example report. Cross-skill links (competitor-analysis, skill-contract.md) are clearly signaled and structural, matching the 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references' anchor.

Specificity

The description names the domain and criteria — "prioritizes search volume, keyword difficulty, intent, and topic clusters from provided or connected data" — but 'prioritizes' is the only action verb; it never states that the skill discovers, expands, scores, or clusters keywords, so coverage of concrete actions is incomplete. Not a 4 because unlike 'Extracts text from PDF files, fills forms, converts pages to images' it does not list several specific actions; not a 2 because it is far more concrete than 'Processes PDF files'.

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit with concrete trigger phrases ("Use when the user asks to 'find keywords', '挖词', or '搜什么词'"), and the 'what' is present but weak — 'prioritizes search volume, keyword difficulty, intent, and topic clusters' describes the criteria, not the skill's actions or deliverable. Not a 5 because the what-side lacks explicit capability verbs; not a 3 because both halves are stated rather than one being missing.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases are present in two languages — "find keywords", "挖词", "搜什么词", "关键词研究/内容选题" — phrased as things a user would actually say. Missing common English variations such as 'keyword research', 'SEO keywords', or 'what to write about', so it falls just short of the comprehensive-synonym coverage of a 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description carves out a clear niche with an explicit exclusion — "Not for competitor-relative coverage gaps — use content-gap-analysis" — plus distinct bilingual triggers, so conflict risk with neighboring SEO skills is minimal. This matches the anchor 'Clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk'.