Conciseness

The body explains nothing Claude already knows and assumes competence, but it restates the same points multiple times: 'The on-screen UI, any faces in it, and the wordmark are ALWAYS real assets — never AI-rendered' appears in the bullet list, again in the PIL bullet, and again as Contract item 1; the Ken-Burns fallback appears in the bullet list, the Run section, and Contract item 2; 'VO first (locks the timeline)' appears in Run and PIPELINE both. This matches the score-3 anchor (mostly efficient but could be tightened); not 4 because the repetition is structural, not just minor trimming.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance is present: 'Copy the structure of scripts/config.example.json → config.json, fill the creative fields from the recipe choices', an explicit ordered chain ('VO first (locks the timeline) → nano-banana CGI plates → PIL screen composites → ... → 1.15x speed + grain'), and named bundle files. Matches score 4 (mostly executable, concrete references with minor gaps); not 5 because the body contains no commands/code itself and defers the executable steps to PIPELINE.md/README.md, whose working scripts live in an unshipped source-run directory ('clients/masterclass/ad-runs/...').

Workflow Clarity

A clear sequence is given twice (Run section and the bullet pipeline) with a per-beat decision gate as a checkpoint: 'If a Kling beat garbles the burst-out UI, distorts the phone, or animates the screen, fall that beat to a FREE Ken-Burns push-in — never ship a garbled beat'. Matches score 4 (clear sequence, most checkpoints present); not 5 because there are no explicit validation steps on the FREE outputs (e.g. checking composite alignment, screen-bbox detection, or measured VO durations) — the only verification is the Kling-garble judgment.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clean overview and appropriately splits detail into one-level-deep, clearly signaled references: 'See scripts/README.md for the full FREE-assembly detail and scripts/PIPELINE.md for the config-field → source-step map' — and all three referenced files (scripts/README.md, scripts/PIPELINE.md, scripts/config.example.json) exist in the bundle with content matching their signaled roles. Matches the score-5 anchor (clear overview, well-signaled one-level-deep references, easy navigation).

Specificity

Quotes multiple concrete actions with comprehensive coverage: 'nano-banana CGI plates', 'PIL compositing of the REAL App Store screenshots onto the bezel + burst-out overlays', 'Kling 3.0 i2v steady-float per beat with a per-beat Ken-Burns FFmpeg push-in fallback', 'VO/music mix (sidechain duck, loudnorm) + 1.15x speed + anti-AI grain finalize'. This matches the score-5 anchor (multiple specific concrete actions, comprehensive); score 4 would require minor coverage gaps, but every pipeline stage is named.

Completeness

The 'what' is explicit and detailed (full assembly pipeline enumerated), and a 'when' clause is present ('Use for the cgi-app-sizzle video format'), so both exist — matching the score-4 anchor. Not 5 because the 'when' is a single reference to an internal format name with no concrete trigger phrases or user-side synonyms; not 3 because the 'when' is explicit, not merely implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Some relevant keywords exist ('3D-CGI app sizzle', 'App Store screenshots', 'video format') but the natural-phrases users would say are thin — the only trigger is the internal format name 'Use for the cgi-app-sizzle video format', and terms like 'nano-banana', 'Kling 3.0 i2v', and 'recipe choices' are internal jargon. Matches the score-3 anchor (relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms such as 'promo video', 'app demo', 'product film'); not 4 because a user asking generically for an app promo video would not naturally say these terms.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear ('3D-CGI app sizzle' with a very specific plates/compositing/i2v pipeline), so it is mostly distinct with minimal conflict risk — matching score 4. Not 5 because it shares trigger surface with sibling video-format skills in the same recipe family (the 'recipe orchestrates the spend' framing implies a family of closely related capabilities), leaving minor overlap risk.