Conciseness

Quotes: "They skip layout and paint and run on the GPU", "they run off the main thread, while `requestAnimationFrame`-based animation drops frames", "Percentages in `translate()` are relative to the element's own size", "touch fires false hovers on tap" — several explanations of CSS behavior Claude already knows, plus redundancy between the step sections and the Never Ship table (ease-in, scale(0), transform-origin, 300ms, hover gating all stated twice) and a scripted "Initial Response" section that adds tokens without operational value. Not 4 because these instances are more than minor trimming; not 2 because the bulk is curated, non-obvious guidance (exact bezier values, duration tables, frequency gate) that genuinely earns its tokens.

Actionability

Quotes: exact values "--ease-out: cubic-bezier(0.23, 1, 0.32, 1)", duration tables ("Button press feedback | 100–160ms"), spring configs "{ type: "spring", duration: 0.5, bounce: 0.2 }", and copy-paste-ready snippets for media queries, motion.div, and useReducedMotion — fully concrete, executable guidance covering the common decision cases. Not 4 because there are no real gaps: every rule is paired with the exact value or code to use.

Workflow Clarity

Quotes: "Run the sequence in order. Steps 1 and 2 gate everything", "If the request fails this gate, say so plainly and don't write the animation", and "Self-check before you finish" (the Never Ship checklist) — a 7-step sequence with explicit ordering, stop conditions, a final checklist, and a defined output format. Not 4 because validation checkpoints are explicit at the gate, during property/curve selection via hard rules, and at the self-check — not merely implied.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned and links "see [RECIPES.md](RECIPES.md)" for eleven common cases — but no RECIPES.md exists in the bundle (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories at all), so the only progressive-disclosure reference is broken and its promised content is unavailable. Not 4 because a dangling reference to a missing file is a structural defect, not a minor organization gap; not 2 because SKILL.md itself is clearly structured, one level deep, and the reference is prominently signaled rather than buried.

Specificity

Quotes: "Build an animation from scratch", "Writes the implementation", and the ordered decision list "should it animate at all, what purpose, which tool, which properties, which curve and duration, how it interrupts, how it exits" — several concrete actions/decisions are named, matching the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor. Not 5 because the actions are framed as decision dimensions rather than a fully comprehensive inventory of concrete capabilities; not 3 because it well exceeds 1-2 concrete actions.

Completeness

Quotes: "Build an animation from scratch... Writes the implementation" gives a clear 'what', and "Use when asked to animate something, add motion, make a component feel alive, or build a transition" gives an explicit 'when' with concrete trigger phrases — the exact pattern of the 5 anchor. Not 4 because the 'when' clause is already fully explicit and specific.

Trigger Term Quality

Quotes: "Use when asked to animate something, add motion, make a component feel alive, or build a transition" — good natural-phrase coverage (animate, motion, transition, feel alive). Not 5 because a few natural synonyms users might say are absent (e.g. "microinteraction", "spring animation", "animated"); not 3 because coverage goes well beyond 'some relevant keywords'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Quotes: "For critiquing existing motion use review-animations; for auditing a whole codebase use improve-animations" — explicit disambiguation against the nearest sibling skills, plus a distinct build-vs-critique niche. Not 4 because overlap risk is actively mitigated by the named redirects, not just implicit.