Conciseness

The body is dense and telegraphic with essentially no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and specifics like "commerce_info.bc_label_test_text" and "statistics.play_count" earn their tokens. It sits below anchor 5 because the hedge "observations, not proof of performance" is repeated across the Summary, Core principle, 1A and Phase 3, and the street-ad/podcast policy block largely restates material already in video-handoff.md — minor instances that could be trimmed.

Actionability

Fully executable instruction-only guidance: exact endpoints ("/v1/tiktok/video/comments", "/v1/facebook/adLibrary/search/ads"), tool names ("ads_template_read in query mode", "video_project_upsert"), numeric thresholds ("30+ days, or with 3+ variants", "under about 0.5, try a second phrasing"), the save path "video-scripts/<brand_id>/<product_id>/angle-bank.json", and complete output table schemas for all three output types. Specific examples cover the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

Phases 0 through 5 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints and error-recovery loops: the paid-call gate ("before the first one, say roughly how many you'll run and ask one yes/no"), the stored-page-vs-found-page check in 1A, the retry on low similarity ("when the best similarity is under about 0.5, try a second phrasing"), reject-before-scoring ("Reject unsupported product promises and impossible angle–template pairs before scoring"), and the workspace-write fallback ("If workspace writes fail, retain the run copy and pass directly").

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure overall: two real one-level-deep references are used at the right moments ("Read [buyer case and supported product role](references/buyer-and-product-role.md)"; "read the video-handoff reference"), both of which exist in the bundle. It falls below anchor 5 because "[[references::render-street-interview]]" and "[[references::write-video-ad-script]]" point to files not present in this bundle's references directory, and the street-ad and podcast policy paragraphs are inlined where the (missing) reference should carry them.

Specificity

Quotes several concrete actions — "Research supported advertising promises", "Turn them into static, video or copy ideas", "match video ideas to actual recipes", "save a product-scoped angle bank" — with named sources ("current product facts, customer language and observed ads"). It falls short of the anchor-5 'comprehensive coverage' example because static and copy outputs get no parallel detail and the research actions behind each source remain implied.

Completeness

The 'what' is explicit and multi-part (research promises, produce three output types, match video ideas to recipes, persist an angle bank), but there is no "Use when…" clause or equivalent trigger guidance; "for write-video-ad-script" names a downstream consumer, not a use condition. Per the rubric guideline, a missing use-when clause caps completeness at 3 — not 4 because the when-dimension is entirely absent rather than just imprecise.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: "advertising promises", "static, video or copy ideas", "observed ads", "reviews". A few natural terms users actually say are missing — "ad angles", "hooks", "competitor ads" — phrases the skill's own body lists under Trigger Phrases, so it does not reach anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (ad-promise research producing angle banks for a named downstream script writer) makes it mostly distinct from generic copywriting skills, and the explicit "save a product-scoped angle bank for write-video-ad-script" separates research from writing. Minor overlap risk remains with sibling ad-creation skills since no distinct trigger phrases are given, keeping it below anchor 5.