Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes competence — no basic-concept explanations, no library introductions — with every rule stated once. Minor tightening is possible: the 'rendering unverified' rule is spread across the evidence paragraph and the first bullet, and "It captures the interaction state only for routes with an entry in INTERACTIONS ... (today only #/balloon)" is a convoluted sentence. That places it at anchor 4 (efficient, minor trimmable instances) rather than anchor 5, but well above anchor 3 since nothing is padded or redundant in substance.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully concrete: the exact capture command ("scripts/visual/run-capture.sh"), exact viewports (1280x800, 390px), exact screenshot states, exact rubric criterion IDs (controls, composition, materials, art-integration, focus-contrast, responsive, quiet), and exact code patterns to flag (hex, rgb(, hsl(, named colours, font strings) with explicit exemptions. This matches anchor 5's 'specific examples cover the common cases'; anchor 4 would imply gaps in the concrete detail, and none are evident.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is discernible and complete — capture rendered evidence at the listed widths/states, compare against the rubric and fixtures, mark each criterion pass/finding/unverified, then report findings naming screen, state, criterion and fix — with the calibration fixtures acting as a checkpoint. It stops short of anchor 5 because the ordering is implicit rather than an explicit numbered workflow with an error-recovery loop; it exceeds anchor 3 because the checkpoints (per-criterion marking, calibration check) are explicitly present.

Progressive Disclosure

No skill bundle files exist (no references/, scripts/, or assets/), and the ~70-line body is appropriately kept inline for a single-purpose review lens. External detail is properly deferred one level deep via clearly signaled pointers: "docs/visual-baseline/README.md", "review-lenses/visual-design/rubric.json", "review-lenses/visual-design/fixtures/", and "scripts/visual/capture.mjs". Well-organized sections and clean one-level references match anchor 5; nothing is inlined that belongs in a separate file.

Specificity

The description names one concrete action — "Review changes that affect how the carnival looks ... against the visual design baseline" — with a parenthetical scope list ("UI routes, shared styles, drawing code and art"), but does not enumerate several distinct actions. This matches anchor 3 (domain plus 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive); it is not anchor 4 because no multiple specific actions are listed, and not anchor 2 because the action is concrete rather than generic.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both parts: what ("Review changes that affect how the carnival looks ... against the visual design baseline") and when ("Use on pull requests that touch index.html, src/main.ts, src/style.css, ... or anything under docs/visual-baseline") with concrete trigger paths. This is a clear anchor 5; anchor 4 would require the 'when' to be less explicit than the file-path-level triggers given here.

Trigger Term Quality

Concrete triggers like "index.html", "src/style.css", "any src/**/*.ts that draws to a canvas", "pull requests", and "visual design baseline" give good keyword coverage a user or harness would naturally match. A few natural phrasings (e.g. "CSS", "styling", "looks", "appearance") are absent, so it falls just short of anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is unmistakable — a repo-specific visual review keyed to the carnival midway, named files, and docs/visual-baseline — so it is clearly distinguishable from any generic skill. Minimal conflict risk; a clear anchor 5 rather than anchor 4, which would require some overlap with closely related skills.