Conciseness

The body is lean (~27 lines), assumes Claude's competence, and explains nothing the model already knows — it fits anchor 4 ('Efficient; minor instances... that could be trimmed'). Not 5 because of redundancy: the frontmatter description is repeated verbatim in 'What it does' and the upstream URL appears in both the 'Source' section and the code block; not 3 or below since there is no padded or unnecessary explanation.

Actionability

The central instruction — 'install the upstream bundle into your active agent's skills directory' — has no executable command (no clone command, no destination path), and the snippet's own comment concedes the gap: 'Inspect the upstream README for exact paths'. The only concrete command is `open https://github.com/figma/skills`, which merely opens a webpage. This matches anchor 2 ('Minimal concrete guidance; high-level hints but missing the specific steps to execute') rather than 3, which would require some complete executable guidance.

Workflow Clarity

A rough sequence exists (inspect upstream README → install bundle → invoke by name or trigger phrase), but the middle step is undefined and there are no checkpoints confirming the install succeeded before invocation. This matches anchor 2 ('Rough sequence present but... steps poorly defined; validation absent'). It is not 3 because the key step (install) is left entirely unspecified rather than merely lacking checkpoints; the operation is non-destructive, so the destructive-op cap does not apply, and the simple-skill exception cannot raise it because the single action is not unambiguous.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle directories (references/, scripts/, assets/) exist, so there is nothing misfiled; the body is well under 50 lines with clearly labeled sections ('What it does', 'Source', 'How to use') and a single clearly-signaled external pointer (the upstream repo). Per the rubric's simple-skill note, a short skill with no need for external references scores 5 with just well-organized sections, which this has.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('Figma design components', 'code components', 'Code Connect') and one concrete action — 'Connect Figma design components to code components' — plus an outcome ('design-system updates flow into the codebase automatically'). It matches anchor 3 ('names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'): it does not list several distinct actions like the anchor-4 example, and it is far above the vague anchor-2 ('Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic') because the action and mechanism are concrete.

Completeness

It has a clear 'what' ('Connect Figma design components to code components using Code Connect...') but no 'when' — there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance in the description text. Per the rubric guideline, a missing 'Use when' clause caps completeness at 3, which matches anchor 3 ('Has a clear what but when is missing or only weakly implied').

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage: 'Figma', 'Code Connect', 'design components', 'code components', 'design-system', 'codebase' are all natural terms a user needing this skill would say. Not 5 because common variations are missing ('design to code', 'sync designs to code', 'Figma Dev Mode', file extensions), and not 3 because coverage goes beyond 'some relevant keywords' — the core product name and domain nouns are all present.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Connect Figma design components to code components using Code Connect' carves out a specific niche (Figma's Code Connect feature), but there is minor overlap risk with closely related skills such as generic 'generate code from Figma designs' or design-system sync skills, matching anchor 4 ('Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills') rather than anchor 5's 'minimal conflict risk'.