Conciseness

The body is dense and tool-specific with no filler or explanation of concepts Claude already knows — every rule carries a concrete consequence or exact error string ('Expected 'FIXED' | 'AUTO', received 'FILL'', 'Cannot write to node with unloaded font'). It is not a 5 because Rules 12/12b/12c repeat substantially the same sizing-enum material, Section 2 re-elaborates Rule 9, and Section 5's full selector-syntax table plus six examples is API surface that could be trimmed or moved to a reference file. Not a 3 because the over-explanation is minor relative to the volume of non-obvious, high-signal content.

Actionability

Fully executable, copy-paste-ready JavaScript throughout: query/set examples ('figma.currentPage.query('FRAME[name^=Card] TEXT').set({...})'), createAutoLayout scaffolds, worked inspection scripts, and the canonical font-load recipe, with exact error messages and specific fixes in the recovery table. This matches the anchor-5 example of executable code covering the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

Section 6 gives a numbered incremental workflow (inspect → skeleton → retry-safe batches → return IDs → validation evidence → fix before moving on) with a step-by-step validation table, Section 7 defines explicit error-recovery feedback loops (safeToRetryWithoutCanvasRead contract, re-discover on repeat failure), and Section 8 provides a pre-flight checklist — all three elements of the anchor-5 example are present. Not a 4 because validation checkpoints are explicit at every step, not merely 'most'.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an operating contract with a well-signaled reference table (Section 10) giving load-conditions and coverage for each of the 12 real bundle files; bulk detail (gotchas.md, pattern files, the 403KB .d.ts) is correctly split out, and the .d.ts is explicitly grep-only rather than loaded. The working-with-design-systems drill-down (wwds.md → specific files) is clearly signaled as progressive loading, and all referenced paths and anchors in the body resolve to real files. Not a 4 because navigation is easy and content is appropriately split with only negligible inline API surface.

Specificity

Enumerates multiple concrete actions ('create/edit/delete nodes, set up variables or tokens, build components and variants, modify auto-layout or fills, bind variables to properties, or inspect file structure programmatically'), which is anchor-5 coverage, but the rubric's voice penalty applies: 'you MUST invoke this skill' is second person rather than third person, reducing the score by 1. Not a 3 because the action list is far more comprehensive than 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions'.

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit and concrete ('Trigger whenever the user wants to perform a write action or a unique read action...'), so the missing-trigger cap does not apply, but the 'what' is only implied through the trigger clause — the description states the skill is a mandatory prerequisite for use_figma without ever saying what it provides (e.g., Plugin API execution rules and patterns). Not a 5 because the 'what' is not explicitly stated as a capability; not a 3 because the trigger guidance is explicit and detailed.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage ('create', 'edit', 'delete nodes', 'variables or tokens', 'components and variants', 'auto-layout', 'fills'), but phrases like 'unique read action that requires JavaScript execution in the Figma file context' are internal jargon rather than what a user would naturally say, and common synonyms are absent. Not a 5 because the coverage lacks natural variations a user would actually utter; not a 3 because most trigger terms are genuinely natural to the Figma domain.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche bound to the use_figma tool and Figma Plugin API with distinct triggers ('JavaScript execution in the Figma file context', 'bind variables to properties'); minimal conflict risk with other skills. Not a 4 because the tool binding and API-specific actions make overlap with sibling design skills unlikely.