Conciseness

The body is ~725 lines and includes a large catalog of boilerplate variant code (fadeIn/slideUp/slideInFromLeft/scaleIn, fadeOut/slideDown, staggerContainer/staggerItem, pageTransition) that Claude could derive from the motionTokens block plus one exemplar, and the naocodei provenance/licensing caveat is stated twice (inline 'Aviso de proveniencia' and again in 'Fontes Externas'). Not score 2 because it never explains concepts Claude already knows and the prose sections are dense and justified; not score 4 because several hundred lines of inline variant boilerplate could be trimmed or offloaded.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: complete TypeScript/TSX imports and components, exact numeric values (duration/easing tuples, 15ms reorder stagger, 3 flashes/sec, 60fps, 10-item stagger cap), named libraries with cleanup patterns (.kill() in useEffect), and a copy-paste useReducedMotion hook. Not score 4 because the examples are complete and cover the common cases rather than having minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

When/when-not-to-use sections, an explicit reduced-motion verification checkpoint with a re-test feedback loop ('Corrigir o CSS/asset faltante e testar de novo'), completion criteria, handoff inputs/outputs, and a referenced review checklist give clear sequencing with most checkpoints present. Not score 5 because there is no end-to-end ordered implementation workflow tying the sections together — the sequence is assembled from well-labeled parts rather than stated as a numbered process; not score 3 because validation checkpoints are explicit, not implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

Four real one-level-deep reference files (verified present in references/), each introduced with a purpose statement and explicit 'when to consult' guidance, and the bulk material (16-pattern GSAP lab, decision gate, glossary, view transitions API) is properly offloaded. Not score 5 because the main file still carries a long inline variant catalog and several governance/handoff blocks that could live in a reference, keeping SKILL.md from being a lean overview.

Specificity

"Projeta e implementa animacoes e microinteracoes de interface" names the domain with two generic verbs (design, implement) but does not enumerate the concrete deliverables the skill actually covers (motion tokens, page transitions, scroll-driven animation, reduced-motion support). Not score 4 because it lacks the 'several specific actions' list; not score 2 because the domain is precise and the term 'microinteracoes' narrows it beyond a generic action verb.

Completeness

The first sentence explicitly answers 'what' (designs and implements animations and interface microinteractions) and "Trigger em:" followed by concrete trigger phrases explicitly answers 'when'. Not score 4 because the 'when' is fully explicit with concrete phrases rather than merely present.

Trigger Term Quality

The trigger list is comprehensive and natural: 21 terms spanning tool names ("framer motion", "spring"), technique synonyms ("shared element", "flip", "layout animation", "parallax", "easing"), accessibility phrasing ("reduced motion", "flash", "piscando"), and colloquial intent ("quando nao animar", "animacao demais"). Coverage includes both technical and everyday registers a user would actually say.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear motion-design niche with unmistakably motion-specific triggers ("spring", "easing", "shared element", "flip", "parallax", "framer motion") that would not plausibly route to an unrelated skill. Broad-ish terms like "hover effect" and "flash" are still legitimately motion territory; conflict risk is minimal.