Conciseness

The body is efficient and assumes Claude's competence — no concept explanations, and every section (variant table, plan template, report template) does real work. It falls at 4 rather than 5 because the core minimal-change principle is stated three times ("The deck is the source of truth for formatting; you're only changing values", "smallest possible change, existing formatting stays intact", "Don't reformat anything you didn't need to touch... you're a surgeon, not a renovator") and rhetorical asides ("a quiet disaster", "missed at 11pm") could be trimmed without losing guidance. It is well above 3: there is no explanation of things Claude already knows and no padding sections.

Actionability

Guidance is highly concrete: exact tool to call ("Use `ask_user_question`"), a variant table for finding all number formats, a copy-paste-ready plan template with worked examples ($485M → $512M with slide-level locations), per-environment edit mechanics, and per-element-type edit standards. It does not reach 5 because two execution steps are left unspecified — "regenerate the affected slide... and write it back" in chat mode and "Run standard visual verification checks" give no concrete method or commands, leaving minor gaps in the executable path.

Workflow Clarity

The four phases are explicitly sequenced with a named approval gate ("This is a four-phase process and the third phase is an approval gate. Don't edit until the user has seen the plan"), which satisfies the destructive-operation validation requirement. Feedback loops are present: the approval offers proceed / skip flagged / revise-mapping options, derived numbers are flagged rather than silently changed, and execution closes with a visual-overflow verification step plus a final report that re-surfaces unresolved flagged items — matching the anchor-5 pattern of explicit validation with error-recovery dispositions.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (no references/, scripts/, or assets/), and none are needed: at ~110 lines of cohesive process guidance, nothing here is reference material that belongs in a separate file — the variant table and templates are integral to the workflow. Section headers (Environment check, Phases 1-4, What you're not doing) make navigation trivial, and there are no buried or nested references, so the structure criterion is fully met without external files.

Specificity

The description states a concrete action — "Updates a presentation with new numbers" — qualified by concrete scenarios ("quarterly refreshes, earnings updates, comp rolls, rebased market data"), which names the domain and specific operations clearly. It stops short of the 5 anchor because it describes a single capability with variations rather than multiple distinct concrete actions (compare the anchor-5 example 'extract text, fill forms, merge documents, convert pages'); it is above the 3 anchor because the action and its variations are explicitly concrete, not generic.

Completeness

It explicitly answers 'what' ("Updates a presentation with new numbers") with concrete trigger phrases in an explicit 'Use whenever the user asks to...' clause, directly paralleling the anchor-5 example. Both what and when are explicit and concrete; it cannot be placed at 4 because the 'when' is not merely present but spelled out with specific quoted triggers.

Trigger Term Quality

It quotes five verbatim natural user phrases — "update the deck with Q4 numbers", "refresh the comps", "roll this forward", "swap in the new earnings", "change all the $485M to $512M" — plus a catch-all "any request to swap figures across an existing deck". This is comprehensive coverage of natural synonyms and phrasings users would actually say, matching the anchor-5 example's breadth; nothing common is missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche — swapping figures in an existing deck "without rebuilding it" — with distinctive finance/deck triggers like "refresh the comps". Minor overlap risk remains with a general presentation-editing skill (a broad .pptx skill covering 'modifying or editing content' would also fire on "update the deck with Q4 numbers"), and phrases like "roll this forward" can arise in financial-modeling contexts, so it sits at the 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' anchor rather than the minimal-conflict 5.