Conciseness

The ~72-line body is dense, project-specific spec ('factor = min(innerWidth/1920, innerHeight/1080)', exact class names, '~650ms' debounce, '≥40px' swipe threshold, the calc(-1 * clamp(...)) fix) that assumes Claude's competence with no concept explanations. Only minor trimming is available — the upstream repo link appears in both the intro and the Attribution section, and 'embed viewport-base.css in full' is stated twice — which fits anchor 4 rather than 5.

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and executable: exact selectors, scaling formula, keyboard keys, easing bezier, output contract, and a specific CSS gotcha with its fix. The gap is that the primary directive 'Start from example.html in this plugin folder... copy... verbatim' cannot be followed as written because example.html is not in the bundle (the SlidePresentation controller does exist in references/html-template.md, which mitigates it). Fits 'Mostly executable guidance... with minor gaps'; not 5 because the named seed file is missing, not 3 because the inline spec plus html-template.md covers the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

The build order is implicit in the section order (copy seed → pick preset → decide density mode → compose slides → output contract) but never given as an explicit sequence, and the body contains no validation or critic checkpoint — the 'critic pass against this rubric' lives only in the frontmatter example_prompt. Fits 'Steps listed but validation gaps; sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit'; not 4 because no explicit step sequence or verification step is written in the body, not 2 because the sections do define a coherent build order.

Progressive Disclosure

A 'References (read on demand)' table with File/When columns points to four real, verified files in references/ (STYLE_PRESETS.md, viewport-base.css, html-template.md, animation-patterns.md), one level deep, with the essential stage spec inlined in the body. Fits 'Clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references; content appropriately split; easy navigation'.

Specificity

The description names a subject ('OpenDesign as a worked AI-workflow example', 'decision-grade AI literacy deck') but states almost no capability actions — there is no 'create/build/generate slides' verb describing what the skill does. It matches 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic': not 3 because it never lists even 1-2 concrete actions the skill performs, and not 1 because the domain itself is named concretely.

Completeness

The 'what' describes one example deck's subject matter ('how local agents read your files and design on your desktop') rather than the skill's function, and there is no 'Use when...' clause — 'for teams new to AI, leadership' only weakly implies a trigger context. Fits 'Has a vague what and no when'; not 3 because the 'what' is vague with respect to the skill's actual capability (building HTML slide decks), and not 1 because a deck deliverable and audience are named.

Trigger Term Quality

'deck', 'AI literacy', and 'AI-workflow' are plausible user phrases, but the natural terms for this skill ('slides', 'presentation', 'HTML', 'slide deck') are absent, and 'OpenDesign' is content-specific rather than a trigger term. Fits 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'; not 4 because the core synonyms users would actually say when needing this skill are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche phrasing ('OpenDesign', 'worked AI-workflow example', 'AI literacy deck') is specific and unlikely to fire for unrelated skills, so wrong-skill triggering risk is low; residual overlap comes from generic AI wording shared with other AI-literacy skills. Fits 'Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills'; not 5 because the description never states the skill's true function (HTML slide generation), so it cannot anchor a distinct trigger for it.