Conciseness

The body is maximally compressed operational instruction with no concept explanations and no padding — every line carries a rule, threshold, or file pointer (e.g. "use a provisional 3 words per second for conversation or 2.5 for slow narration, labelled as a fallback"). Guardrail statements recur across steps but each occurrence is contextual and load-bearing, so there is nothing to trim; it is not 4 because there is no over-explanation at all.

Actionability

Exact commands (`catalog_fetch {type: "skill", slug: "ad-angle-miner"}`, `prepare_angle_context.py --brief`), named artifacts (shape.json, creative-brief.json, candidates.json), hard numeric limits ("13 or fewer; 8 in beat 1", "at least 8/10", "Repair at most twice"), and a recipe adaptation table with failure modes to reject make the guidance fully executable. This matches 'copy-paste ready commands; specific examples cover the common cases' — nothing significant is missing.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 0–8 are explicitly ordered, and Step 6 is a validation gate with a fix-and-retry feedback loop ("Run the rule check in strict mode... fix errors and material warnings... Repair at most twice, then report the remaining defect"), plus a closing 'Quality checks' checklist. This matches the anchor with explicit validation steps, error-recovery loops, and a checklist for a complex process.

Progressive Disclosure

All 11 body links resolve to real files in references/ and are signaled inline at the point of need ("Read [pacing](references/pacing.md)", "For dialogue, load [dialogue-writing](references/dialogue-writing.md)"), one level deep with no nested chains. It is not 5 because the street-ad/podcast observation rules in Step 3 and the street-exchange preparation in Step 5 are substantial inline procedures that could live in dedicated reference files — a minor organization gap rather than a clean split.

Specificity

"Write or revise a short-form ad", "Plan connected words, product proof and sound" and "expose production gaps" name several concrete actions across drafting, planning and review preparation, matching the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor. It is not 5 because the wider workflow (validation, delivery, alternatives) is absent and terms like 'sourced angle' and 'connected words' are compressed jargon rather than fully concrete actions.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear ("Write or revise a short-form ad from a sourced angle and reference") but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance; "expose production gaps before script review" only weakly implies timing. Per the rubric guideline, a missing 'Use when' caps completeness at 3, and it cannot be 4 because no explicit 'when' is stated at all.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms are present ("short-form ad", "write or revise", "script"), but common user phrasings are missing — notably "video", "ad script", "commercial" and "voiceover" — and the rest is skill-internal jargon ("sourced angle", "product proof"). This matches 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations'; it is not 4 because a user asking for a 'video ad script' would not reliably match this text.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"short-form ad" combined with angle/reference sourcing defines a clear niche with only minor overlap risk against generic copywriting or ad-copy skills, matching 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk'. It is not 5 because no explicit trigger phrases sharpen the boundary, and the dense jargon blurs rather than sharpens what distinguishes this skill.