Conciseness

The body is efficient: it assumes competence, uses precise file paths, and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows (no 'what is HTML' padding). The one passage that could be tightened is the explanation of why '../../../assets/...' URLs 404 after copying, which spends several lines on a problem that could be stated in one. This fits 'Efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed' — not 5 because of that passage, not 3 because nothing is unnecessary filler.

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and executable: exact paths to copy ('design-templates/html-ppt/assets/fonts.css', '.../base.css', '.../animations/animations.css', '.../runtime.js'), the exact rewrite ('../../../assets/...' → project-local paths), the body class to keep ('.tpl-presenter-mode-reveal'), and the elements for speaker notes ('<aside class="notes">'). It stops short of copy-paste-ready snippets — the actual <link>/<script> tag lines are described, not shown — so it is 'mostly executable guidance with minor gaps', not fully copy-paste ready at 5.

Workflow Clarity

A clear six-step sequence (read master skill → copy template → fix asset URLs via Recipe A/B → pick theme → replace content → add notes) with the trickiest failure mode (broken parent-relative URLs) handled explicitly. What is missing is a validation checkpoint: no step verifies the deck actually runs (e.g., open index.html and confirm runtime.js loads and navigation works) after the rewrite. This is 'Clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps' — not 5 because the post-rewrite verification is implicit, not 3 because the sequence itself is complete and the one risky operation is guarded by two explicit recipes.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a lean pointer card: all authoring rules are delegated to the master skill (../html-ppt/SKILL.md) with clearly labeled links, and the template catalog is one level deep (../html-ppt/references/full-decks.md). No local references/, scripts/, or assets/ bundle exists to check against, and the structure here is well-organized with section headers. It sits at 'Good structure; most content appropriately placed; references mostly clear' — not 5 because the referenced sibling paths cannot be verified from this bundle and a couple of references (the templates folder, the themes glob) are prose rather than links, but well above 3.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("OpenDesign live demo: from a one-line prompt to runnable design in a single session") but describes the deck's subject matter rather than concrete actions the skill performs — there is no verb-driven capability list (e.g., 'creates HTML decks', 'applies a presenter-mode template'). This matches the anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'; it is above 1 because the domain itself is concrete, and below 3 because no specific actions are listed at all.

Completeness

The 'what' is vague — 'Built as a decision-grade AI literacy deck for developers, prospects, community' describes the artifact's framing, not what the skill does — and there is no 'when' / 'Use when...' clause anywhere in the description, which the guidelines cap at 3 regardless. It fits anchor 2 ('Has a vague what and no when'): above 1 because the topic is stated, below 3 because the what is framing language rather than a clear capability statement.

Trigger Term Quality

Some natural, relevant terms appear — "live demo", "AI literacy", "deck" — but common variations a user would actually say ("slides", "presentation", "HTML deck", "speaker notes") are missing from the description itself. This sits at 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'; it is not 4 because the natural-phrase coverage is thin, and not 2 because the keywords present are ones users do say.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"OpenDesign live demo" is a clear niche marker, but the surrounding terms ("AI literacy deck", "developers, prospects, community") are broad and could overlap with other deck/slide skills. This matches 'Somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills'; not 4 because nothing in the description itself distinguishes it from sibling deck skills, and not 2 because the named subject does constrain it.