Conciseness

The body is lean and operational with no concept explanations Claude already knows, so it is well above anchor 3. However, the ask-when-output-is-unclear rule is stated three times (opening paragraph, "If the output is unclear, ask the user before proceeding", and the table row "Ask 'Editable design layers or a code layer?' and end your turn"), which fits anchor 4's "minor instances that could be trimmed" rather than anchor 5's "every token earns its place".

Actionability

Fully actionable for an instruction-only skill: exact tool calls (generate_figma_design, html_to_figma, send_code_to_figma, whoami, create_new_file), a concrete gate (whoami.code_layers_enabled), a measurable heuristic ("fewer than 10 or unknown → Code Layer; 10 or more → standalone"), the exact question to ask the user, and a complete decision table covering the common input/output combinations. Absence of code is not penalized per the scoring notes.

Workflow Clarity

The two-stage sequence (choose output/destination → follow the import response) is clear, with real checkpoints: ask before proceeding, whoami gate before choosing a Code Layer, "preserve the app and validate locally before uploading when instructed", and "do not describe an unconfirmed stage as complete". It falls short of anchor 5 because validation and error-recovery mechanics are largely delegated to the tool's returned nextStep rather than given as explicit inline validate/fix/retry steps.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external reference files (none exist in references/, scripts/, or assets/), and is cleanly organized into an intro plus two numbered sections. Per the guideline that under-50-line skills with no need for external references can score 5 with well-organized sections, this is the best fit.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — "Import or upload local HTML or project files into Figma, choose editable Design frames, runnable Code Layers or standalone Code (also known as Make), and repair imported previews" — with comprehensive coverage of the skill's capabilities. It matches the 5 anchor (multiple specific concrete actions, comprehensive coverage) rather than 4, which would require minor gaps in coverage.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: what it does (import/upload files, choose output type, repair imported previews) and when to use it ("Use only when the user explicitly names editable Design layers, a runnable Code Layer, or a standalone Code/Make file, or supplies a Figma file key/link as the import destination"), with concrete trigger phrases and an explicit anti-trigger ("Generic code or code-component requests need output clarification"). This matches the 5 anchor exactly.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: "import", "upload", "Figma", "HTML", "project files", "editable Design layers", "Code Layer", "Code/Make", and "Figma file key/link", including the synonym "also known as Make". It falls short of the 5 anchor because file extensions (e.g., .html, .fig) and a few common user phrasings (e.g., "convert HTML to Figma") are missing, but it is noticeably above the 3 anchor's "missing common variations".

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche (Figma import) with distinct triggers and actively reduces conflict risk by excluding generic code requests. Anchor 5 is the best fit; anchor 4's "minor overlap risk with closely related skills" does not apply given the explicit boundary-setting.