Conciseness

The body is dense, non-obvious project knowledge with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows — e.g. "**always save/restore the previous render target** (getRenderTarget()), and bail if renderer/scene aren't ready" and the note that the 4-space indent keeps the duplicate-declaration guard from scanning its locals. It is not a 4 because I cannot find a passage of over-explanation to trim; even the long QA paragraphs consist entirely of project-specific assertions.

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and executable in most places — exact file paths, API signatures like "setSubjectsProvider(() => [{pos:Vector3, name}])", runnable QA commands ("?cctv=demo", "npm run check", "npm run smoke", "./publish.sh") and named functions with parameters. It is not a 5 because no copy-paste code blocks are provided; the guidance describes code to change rather than giving executable snippets, so minor gaps remain for someone adding a new camera or feed.

Workflow Clarity

The content is organized by subsystem (Files → How it works → Placement → Lobby cutting → QA → Pitfalls) and the QA section supplies explicit validation checkpoints with concrete assertions ("assert activeFeed() returns the feed and activity > 0", landing-page mock-and-assert steps). It is not a 5 because there is no explicit ordered workflow for making a change — the reader must assemble the change→verify loop from the sections — though this is not a batch/destructive skill so no cap applies, keeping it above 3.

Progressive Disclosure

The single SKILL.md is well-sectioned with clear headers and no nested or buried references (no bundle files exist), and everything referenced is described in place. It is not a 5 because the file runs ~105 lines of dense inline detail — e.g. the multi-paragraph landing-page QA procedure — that a reference file would keep out of the always-loaded context if a bundle were used; it is well above 3 because nothing is disorganized or misplaced.

Specificity

The description enumerates multiple concrete capabilities — "render-to-texture security feeds, the black-and-white CRT/VHS monitor shader, camera placement (lobby side-cams, pumpkincam, treecams), subject tracking, or the lobby screen cutting to live feeds" — which is comprehensive coverage of the subsystem's areas, matching the anchor for multiple specific concrete actions. It is not a 4 because no meaningful capability area of the skill is missing from the enumeration.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: "Use when changing the in-world CCTV / 'Truman Show' surveillance cameras in Tiny World builder" gives the when with concrete trigger phrasing, and the em-dash list states exactly what aspects are covered. Not a 4 because neither the what nor the when is vague or implicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms a user would say are all present: "CCTV", "'Truman Show' surveillance cameras", "security feeds", "camera", "monitor", "tracking", "lobby screen ... live feeds". It is not a 4 because I cannot identify a natural phrase or synonym in this domain that is missing; jargon like "render-to-texture" is balanced by plain-language terms.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"in-world CCTV / 'Truman Show' surveillance cameras in Tiny World builder" carves out a clear niche scoped to one project and one subsystem, with distinct triggers unlikely to fire for any other skill. Not a 4 because there is no realistic overlap with a neighboring skill.