Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes competence: no primer on HTML/CSS concepts, and the one long passage (step 3) earns its tokens by documenting a genuinely non-obvious failure mode (parent-relative asset URLs 404 after copying). Not a 5: Recipe B's inline instructions repeat the file list from Recipe A and restate the URL caveat twice ("Either way, do not ship the upstream ../../../assets/... URLs verbatim"), which could be tightened.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: exact template folder to copy from ("templates/full-decks/hermes-cyber-terminal/ — copy index.html and style.css"), exact files to copy (fonts.css, base.css, animations/animations.css, runtime.js), exact rewrites for the four link/script tags, theme swapping via "<link id=\"theme-link\">" with T to cycle, and a concrete destination for speaker notes ("<aside class=\"notes\">"). Paths and outcomes are specified so nothing is left to guesswork.

Workflow Clarity

A clear numbered sequence (read master skill -> copy template -> fix asset URLs -> pick theme -> replace content -> place notes) with the riskiest step explicitly flagged with its failure mode (deck never activates, navigation dead) and two remedies. Not a 5: there is no explicit validation checkpoint after assembly (e.g., 'open index.html and confirm arrow keys / T cycle themes before delivery'), so error recovery is by recipe rather than by verification.

Progressive Disclosure

The card correctly stays a thin overview pointing one level deep into a master skill ([../html-ppt/SKILL.md](../html-ppt/SKILL.md), the full-decks catalog, themes folder), but references are not cleanly signaled: the master skill is cited under two different root paths ("../html-ppt/SKILL.md" vs "design-templates/html-ppt/SKILL.md"), and none of these paths resolve within the skill's own bundle (no references/ or assets/ directories ship alongside it), so navigation depends on an unstated parent-repo layout. Not a 2 because the structure itself is well-organized sections that delegate detail appropriately.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("OpenDesign + BYOK", "cost, quality, and the routing decision") and one or two concrete actions ("choosing and wiring your own model, hands-on"), but "Built as a decision-grade AI literacy deck" characterizes the artifact rather than listing actions, so coverage is not comprehensive. Not a 4: it does not list several specific concrete actions the skill performs (e.g., produce a slide plan, write slides, run a critic pass — those only appear in frontmatter od.example_prompt, not the description).

Completeness

The 'what' is reasonably clear (a decision-grade deck on choosing/wiring your own model around cost, quality, routing), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance — the closest is an audience statement ("for engineers, IT, applied-AI teams"), which only weakly implies when. Per the rubric guideline, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 3.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords are present ("BYOK", "OpenDesign", "model", "AI literacy") but common natural variations users would say are missing — no "bring your own key", "slides", "presentation", "deck template", or "choose a model" phrasing. Not a 4: keyword coverage has notable gaps rather than 'a few natural terms missing'; not a 2 because the terms present are domain-relevant rather than generic.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"OpenDesign + BYOK: choosing and wiring your own model" carves a fairly clear niche (BYOK model-selection briefing decks) unlikely to steal triggers from unrelated skills. Not a 5: phrases like "AI literacy" and (in the frontmatter triggers) bare "ai", "copilot", "workflow" are broad and could overlap with generic AI-literacy or copilot skills.