Conciseness

The same 9-step workflow is presented four times — the Checklist, the 29-line dot digraph, the 'The Process'/'After the Design' prose, and the 'Key Principles' recap — and 'Design for isolation and clarity' lectures on concepts Claude already knows ('Smaller, well-bounded units are also easier for you to work with - you reason better about code you can hold in context at once'). That is several padded/generic sections, matching anchor 2; it avoids anchor 1 because the core dialogue guidance (offer scripts, gates, review checks) is skill-specific and not background explanation, and doesn't reach anchor 3 because the redundancy is systemic rather than a few stray sentences.

Actionability

Guidance is copy-paste ready throughout: the verbatim Visual Companion offer ("Some of what we're working on might be easier to explain if I can show it to you in a web browser..."), the verbatim spec-review message ("Spec written and committed to `<path>`..."), the exact spec path pattern `docs/superpowers/specs/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-design.md`, and the four named self-review checks. Per the rubric's instruction-skill note, absence of code isn't penalized when guidance is this concrete; it exceeds anchor 4 because the specific examples cover the common cases (accept/decline companion, approved/changes-requested spec review).

Workflow Clarity

The 9-step checklist is strictly ordered with a HARD-GATE up front, explicit validation checkpoints (user approval after each design section, spec self-review, a dedicated User Review Gate), and explicit feedback loops ("User approves design?" -> 'no, revise'; "User reviews spec?" -> 'changes requested' loops back). This matches anchor 5 ('clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery; checklists for complex processes'); no destructive or batch operations are involved, so no cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned and its one reference is clearly signaled ("read the detailed guide before proceeding: `skills/brainstorming/visual-companion.md`"), but scored against the actual bundle that path is dangling — no visual-companion.md exists anywhere in the skill — and the five real files in `scripts/` (server.cjs, start-server.sh, stop-server.sh, helper.js, frame-template.html) are never referenced from SKILL.md, leaving the bundle's infrastructure undiscoverable. This sits between anchor 3 (structure present but organization flawed) and anchor 4 (minor gaps only); a broken primary reference plus orphaned bundle files is more than a minor gap, so 3.

Specificity

The 'what' is a single clause — "Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation" — naming the domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but never mentions the other things the skill actually does (propose approaches, present designs, write spec docs). This matches anchor 3 ('Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'); it is below anchor 4 because the remaining phrases ('creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior') are triggers, not capability descriptions, and above anchor 2 because the actions given are concrete rather than generic.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: the 'what' ("Explores user intent, requirements and design before implementation") and an explicit trigger clause ("You MUST use this before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior"), so the 'missing Use when... cap at 3' rule does not apply. Below anchor 5 because the 'when' is a broad mandate rather than concrete user-utterance triggers ('Use when the user asks to build or design X').

Trigger Term Quality

Phrases like "creating features", "building components", "adding functionality", and "modifying behavior" are natural things users say when starting creative work, giving good keyword coverage. Not anchor 5 because common variations users actually utter — 'brainstorm', 'design a', 'new project', 'spec', 'plan' — are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The trigger claims "before any creative work - creating features, building components, adding functionality, or modifying behavior", which covers essentially every software development task, creating high overlap risk with implementation, planning, and refactoring skills — matching anchor 2 ('Very broad; high overlap risk with many similar skills'). Not anchor 3 because the claimed trigger surface, not just the niche, is what a router would match on, and 'modifying behavior' alone collides with most change-oriented skills.