Conciseness

The body is lean with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and the detailed asset-path gotcha genuinely earns its tokens; minor tightening is possible — Recipe A and Recipe B each re-enumerate the same four asset files, and phrases like 'meaning the deck never activates and slide navigation is dead' could be trimmed. Fits 'Efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed'.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: exact template folder path, exact files to copy, the specific URL rewrite from '../../../assets/...' to project-local paths, the theme mechanism via '<link id="theme-link">', and the notes rule ('<aside class="notes">'). Minor gap: no literal example of the rewritten <link>/<script> tags, keeping it just below copy-paste-ready level 5.

Workflow Clarity

A clear numbered 1-6 sequence with the critical 404 failure mode surfaced up front and two concrete prevention recipes; the only checkpoint gap is the absence of an explicit post-copy verification step (e.g. confirm the deck opens and navigation works). The work is non-destructive, so the batch-validation cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

A well-structured pointer card: authoring rules are delegated to the upstream html-ppt master skill via clearly signaled, one-level-deep links ('Read the master skill first', catalog link with rationale), while only card-specific gotchas stay inline. Minor organization gap: the inlined Recipe A/B asset-rewrite detail applies to any full-deck template and arguably belongs in the master skill rather than this card.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('feature business case for the plugin marketplace', 'decision-grade product management deck') but contains no action verbs — it never states what the skill does (create, build, write), only what the deck contains. This matches the anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic' rather than level 3, which requires 1-2 concrete actions.

Completeness

The 'what' is only implied via 'Built as a decision-grade product management deck' — the skill's actual action is never stated — and there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. Anchor 3 ('clear what but when is missing or only weakly implied') is the best fit; not 4 because 'when' is entirely absent, not just under-specified.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords are present ('feature business case', 'product management deck', 'tradeoffs', 'leadership') but common natural variations users would actually say are missing ('PM deck', 'pitch deck', 'business case slides'), fitting 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A named product scenario (OpenDesign's plugin marketplace) and a defined audience (PM, eng, design, leadership) give it a clear niche with minimal conflict risk, but the description carries no trigger phrases of its own to distinguish it from sibling deck-writing skills, placing it between 'Mostly distinct' (4) and 'Clear niche with distinct triggers' (5).