Conciseness

The body is dense, table-driven, and assumes Claude's competence — it never explains what Figma or design tokens are. It falls short of anchor 5 only through repetition: batching/visual-review guidance appears in both §1 ('Batch related operations… Take one visual review per coherent composition phase') and Critical Rule 12, and the get_libraries pagination discussion (§5) runs longer than needed. It is clearly above anchor 3, where unnecessary explanation or padding would dominate.

Actionability

Highly actionable throughout: concrete API call shapes ('get_libraries({ fileKey })', 'search_design_system({ queries: [{ entity: "component", query }], fileKey, includeLibraryKeys: ["lk-abc123…"] })'), an exact state-ledger JSON format, specific scope table, naming patterns, and a helper-scripts table. It misses anchor 5 on minor gaps — e.g., Critical Rule 15 says 'embed scripts from scripts/' but shows no example of embedding a helper into a use_figma call, and some guidance ('Communicate proportionally… give updates at meaningful boundaries') is behavioral rather than executable.

Workflow Clarity

Each scope has a numbered, sequenced path with explicit validation steps ('Validate counts, mode values, aliases, scopes, syntax, styles… then stop'), a definition-of-done checklist, an explicit error feedback loop ('If a required acceptance check fails, fix the scoped defect before continuing'), idempotency checks, and a resume protocol for context truncation. This matches the anchor-5 example's validate → fix → retry structure; anchor 4 would require missing checkpoints.

Progressive Disclosure

SKILL.md is a genuine overview: §10 gives a 'Load when' trigger table for all seven reference docs, §11 indexes the helper scripts, and inline summaries (naming conventions, token architecture) are backed by full references. All referenced files exist and references are exactly one level deep (they link only back to SKILL.md and to the sibling figma-use skill), matching the anchor-5 structure. It is not below 5 since no content that clearly belongs in a separate file is inlined.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete capabilities — 'create variables/tokens, build component libraries, create individual components with proper variant sets and variable bindings, set up theming (light/dark modes), document foundations, or reconcile gaps between code and Figma' — with comprehensive coverage of the skill's scope. It is not below 4 because there are no minor gaps; every capability domain of the skill is named.

Completeness

Both questions are answered explicitly: the 'what' ('Build or update a professional-grade design system in Figma from a codebase') and the 'when' ('Use when the user wants to… Also use when the user asks to create or generate any component in Figma — even a single one'). Concrete trigger phrases are present, matching the anchor-5 example; anchor 4 would require a weaker or less specific 'when' clause.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrasings are covered comprehensively with synonyms: 'design system', 'variables/tokens', 'component libraries', 'theming (light/dark modes)', 'reconcile gaps between code and Figma', plus the explicit catch-all 'create or generate any component in Figma — even a single one'. It fits the top anchor (synonyms and variations present) rather than anchor 4, which only tolerates a few missing natural terms.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear (Figma design-system construction from code), but the skill deliberately shares trigger surface with the closely related `figma-use` skill ('complements the figma-use skill… Both skills should be loaded together'), creating minor overlap risk. It is above anchor 3 because the overlap is explicitly acknowledged and scoped (WHAT vs HOW), and the description itself would not misfire on unrelated skills.