Conciseness

The body is lean and section-driven ('At a glance', 'Best for', 'Avoid for', 'Workflow', 'Output contract') with almost no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Minor repetition between the intro ('Mixing layouts across templates breaks the system; stay inside this one') and workflow step 3 ('Preserve the design system... never bail to a different template'), plus a slightly wordy license paragraph, keep it just below the 'every token earns its place' anchor.

Actionability

Steps are concrete and directive ('Clone `example.html` into the user's workspace', 'duplicate an existing slide of the most appropriate layout... Update page-number labels', 'leave it intact'), and the Output contract gives a copy-paste-ready `<artifact>` skeleton. The gap that keeps it below 5: the files it tells Claude to clone and redistribute (`example.html`, `template.json`, `assets/deck-stage.js`, `LICENSE`) are not present in the skill bundle, so the primary step cannot actually be executed as shipped.

Workflow Clarity

The six workflow steps are clearly ordered and cover replace, preserve, resize, extend, and runtime, but there are no validation checkpoints — nothing like 'open the deck and confirm navigation/page numbers still work after duplicating or dropping slides', and the anti-drift check sits in the example_prompt rather than the workflow itself. This matches the 'sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit' anchor, not the level-4 anchor whose verify step is explicit.

Progressive Disclosure

Section structure is good and the references (`example.html`, `assets/deck-stage.js`, `LICENSE`, `template.json`) are clearly signaled and one level deep, but every referenced path dangles — none of these files exist in the skill directory, and there is no references/ hierarchy at all. The rubric instructs scoring against the actual bundle structure, so 'references present' cannot score above the level-3 anchor; it is not level 2 because the body itself is appropriately split rather than inlining content that belongs elsewhere.

Specificity

Phrases like 'A brutalist poster-series case study for a music festival — the concept, the system, and how it scaled across formats' and 'Built as a decision-grade design craft deck' name the domain vividly but contain no concrete actions — no 'create', 'build', or 'present' verb describing what the skill does. This matches 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'; it is not level 1 (the domain is rich and specific) nor level 3 (no 1-2 concrete capabilities are actually stated).

Completeness

The 'what' is vague — the description characterizes the subject matter of a deck rather than a capability — and there is no 'when' guidance at all: no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent appears anywhere in the description. Per the rubric guideline a missing trigger clause caps completeness at 3, and the weak 'what' plus absent 'when' places it squarely at the level-2 anchor ('has a vague what and no when').

Trigger Term Quality

There are some relevant natural terms ('poster-series case study', 'music festival', 'design craft deck'), but the phrasing users would actually type ('poster deck', 'case study slides', 'brutalist presentation', 'festival art director') is absent, and the most natural triggers ('html deck', 'html slides') live in the frontmatter triggers block rather than the description. This lands at 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms', below the good-coverage level-4 anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear — 'brutalist', 'poster-series', 'music festival', a specific deck style — so it is unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. Minor overlap risk remains with sibling deck-template skills in the same family ('design craft deck', 'decision-grade' could match other slide/design skills), matching 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills' rather than the minimal-conflict level-5 anchor.