Conciseness

The body is dense and never explains known concepts, but the same routing facts are repeated: existing-media/ffmpeg-skill loading appears in four places ("When to use", "Dependencies", "Structural Flow", "Canonical command path") and earshot/sound-design routing in three, plus cost/consent rules restated across sections. This is more than the "minor instances" of the 4 anchor, so it sits at mostly-efficient-but-could-be-tightened.

Actionability

The command block is copy-paste ready ("oma video generate \"Jeju coffee\" --mode shorts --aspect 9:16 --captions tiktok --script ./script.json", "oma video compose <runDir>", "oma video doctor") and the JSON return shape is enumerated. It falls short of fully-executable because the existing-media and sound-design branches — half the skill's scope — defer all executable detail to resource files with only abstract direction like "follow its supported operation".

Workflow Clarity

The canonical command path is numbered and ordered, with explicit validation checkpoints ("The command lints, renders, and ffprobes the output", "a real MP4 passes video-stream and duration validation", "manifest hashes validate"), a feedback loop ("Fix a reported composition or toolchain failure and re-run; return a failure report when it cannot render"), a cost gate before paid actions, and a pre-handoff checklist reference. This matches the anchor for clear sequence, explicit validation, and error-recovery loops.

Progressive Disclosure

In-document structure is good — a dedicated "Conditional resources" section with one-level-deep, clearly signaled references ("Load only what the task needs") — but scoring against the actual bundle, none of the ~10 referenced files (resources/execution-protocol.md, resources/existing-media.md, resources/script-schema.md, resources/checklist.md, etc.) exist in the bundle. The disclosure structure is an unfulfilled promise, so navigation is better organized than a 2 but clearly broken versus a 4.

Specificity

"Create videos through the OMA video CLI", "analyze and edit existing clips", "frame extraction, visual analysis, silence cuts, dubbing assembly, sound effects, scripts, and composition" enumerates eight-plus concrete actions covering creation, analysis, and editing. This matches the anchor for multiple specific concrete actions with comprehensive coverage; score 4 would apply only if there were minor coverage gaps, and there are none.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: the "what" is "Create videos through the OMA video CLI, or analyze and edit existing clips with media tools" and the "when" is the concrete trigger list "Use for frame extraction, visual analysis, silence cuts, dubbing assembly, sound effects, scripts, and composition" plus the routing boundary "audio-only work uses oma-voice". This clearly matches the anchor for explicitly answering both what and when with concrete triggers.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like "videos", "clips", "frame extraction", "silence cuts", "dubbing", and "sound effects" are terms users would actually say. It falls short of the 5 anchor because there are no file extensions (.mp4, .mov) and synonyms like "reel", "make a video", "video editing", or "captions" are missing; it is well above the 3 anchor because the terms present are varied and natural rather than generic.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description carves a clear video niche ("videos", "clips", "dubbing assembly", "frame extraction") and explicitly disambiguates the closest sibling with "audio-only work uses oma-voice". Conflict risk is minimal, matching the clear-niche anchor; it is not 4 because no closely related skill would plausibly capture these triggers.