Conciseness

At ~75 lines the body is lean throughout: no padding, no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and motivational asides are single sentences that act as priority cues ('Don't skip it — a chart with no source citation looks the same as a properly sourced one in the text dump'). Every section earns its place, matching the lean-and-efficient top anchor rather than anchor 4's 'minor instances of over-explanation'.

Actionability

Provides an executable command ('python scripts/extract_numbers.py /tmp/deck_content.md --check'), the exact slide-marker input format the script expects, concrete scan targets ('pretty good', 'a lot of'), and real reference files. However, 'Run standard visual verification checks on each slide' is a high-level hint without procedure, and how to read slides in the add-in vs chat environments is not spelled out — concrete guidance with minor gaps, anchor 4 rather than fully copy-paste-ready anchor 5.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is explicit and well-ordered: read every slide with attribution → write extraction to a file in the script's format → run the script → four numbered dimension checks → severity-categorized report ('Lead with criticals. If there aren't any, say so explicitly'). The skill is read-and-report only, so the destructive/batch validation cap does not apply; per-dimension bullet lists act as checklists.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an overview that delegates detail to clearly signaled, one-level-deep references that all exist in the bundle: 'See references/ib-terminology.md for replacement patterns' at the language-polish step, 'Use references/report-format.md as the structure' at the output step, and scripts/extract_numbers.py for number checking. Nothing that belongs in a separate file is inlined, and navigation is easy.

Specificity

Enumerates four concrete QC actions — 'number consistency across slides', 'data-narrative alignment', 'language polish against IB standards', 'visual and formatting QC' — in third person, with comprehensive coverage of the skill's scope. This matches the anchor for multiple specific concrete actions with comprehensive coverage, and exceeds anchor 4 which expects minor gaps.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: the 'what' is the four numbered QC dimensions, and the 'when' is a full 'Use whenever the user asks to...' clause with concrete example trigger requests. Matches the top anchor exactly; not 4, since the when-clause is fully explicit rather than improvable.

Trigger Term Quality

Covers natural synonyms ('review, check, QC, proof, or do a final pass on a deck, pitch, or client materials') plus verbatim user phrasings ('check my numbers', 'reconcile figures across slides', 'is this client-ready'). Coverage is comprehensive; the only mild omission is a file extension like .pptx, which alone does not meet anchor 4's 'a few natural terms missing'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Investment banking presentation quality checker' plus distinctive triggers like 'reconcile figures across slides' establish a clear niche, but the generic 'review... a deck, pitch' phrasing carries minor overlap risk with general presentation-editing skills. Mostly distinct with minor overlap risk with closely related skills — anchor 4, not 5.