Conciseness

Statements like "A native Figma spec is GitHub-Flavored Markdown (GFM) under a `SPEC_BLOCK` node" convey only Figma-specific facts Claude would not know; there is no padding and no explanation of Markdown, GFM, or Figma basics. Not 4 because no section contains over-explanation that could be trimmed.

Actionability

Copy-paste-ready calls such as `await figma.spec.createOnCanvasAsync({...})`, `figma.spec.getContent({ specNodeId, offset: 100, maxLines: 50 })`, `figma.spec.editContent({ edits: [{ oldText, newText }] })`, and `figma.spec.comments.create({ anchorText, contextText, message })` cover the common create/read/edit/comment cases with exact parameters and post-write error checks. Not 4 because the shown examples have no gaps.

Workflow Clarity

The main edit loop has explicit checkpoints — "Use `getContent` with the same `specNodeId` before edits and to verify writes" plus `throw new Error('...was not applied')` verification — and recovery guidance like "Add surrounding context to make it unique", so the destructive-operation cap does not apply. It is not 5 because the standalone-file creation path ("call `whoami`, choose a destination plan with `specs_enabled: true`, and call `create_new_file`...") is prose-only with no verification checkpoint — a minor validation gap consistent with anchor 4.

Progressive Disclosure

The single file is well-organized into clear sections (Discover, Create, Content methods, Critical rules, Style, Images, Comments) with no nested or buried references. It is not 5 because at ~110 lines with no reference split it exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill case, and reference-like detail (Style, Images) is inlined; not 3 because nothing is buried and navigation is easy.

Specificity

"create, read, edit, review, or comment on Figma specs" enumerates multiple concrete actions with comprehensive coverage of the domain (anchor 5 territory), but the second-person phrasing "You must read it when working on..." triggers the rubric's one-point voice penalty. It is not 3 because the action list goes well beyond "1-2 concrete actions".

Completeness

"This skill is required to create, read, edit, review, or comment on Figma specs" answers what, and "You must read it when working on a PRD, brief, RFC or any kind of document in either a standalone Figma spec or a Figma spec embedded in a Figma Design or Figjam file" explicitly answers when with concrete trigger phrases — an explicit "Use when..." equivalent. Not 4 because both halves are explicit and concrete rather than merely present.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms users would say are present — "Figma spec", "PRD, brief, RFC", "Figma Design or Figjam file" — giving good keyword coverage. It is not 5 because common synonyms and variations (e.g., "spec file", "product spec", "FigJam") are missing; not 3 because coverage exceeds "some relevant keywords".

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"standalone Figma spec or a Figma spec embedded in a Figma Design or Figjam file" carves a clear niche, but the broad "PRD, brief, RFC or any kind of document" phrasing creates minor overlap risk with general document/PRD-writing skills. Not 5 because of that broad document wording; not 3 because the Figma binding is explicit throughout.