Conciseness

The body is ~35 lean lines: a brief identity statement with concrete render specs ("MP4 / WEBM at 16:9, default 10s, 30fps"), a four-step workflow, and attribution — no explanations of concepts Claude already knows and no padding. Every token earns its place, matching the 'Lean and efficient' anchor; it is not a 4 because there is no over-explanation to trim.

Actionability

Steps 1-2 give concrete, file-level guidance ("Read `source/index.html`", "Replace the sample copy ... keep the motion timing and visual signature intact"), but step 4 ("Render to MP4 via the html-video / HyperFrames renderer") gives no executable command or code — the key execution detail is missing. This matches 'Some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details' rather than 4, which requires mostly executable guidance with only minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

The four steps are clearly sequenced (read → customize → keep self-contained → render) and each step is well defined, but there are no validation or verification checkpoints anywhere — no check that the render succeeded or that the composition is render-safe. This matches 'Steps listed but validation gaps; checkpoints missing or implicit' rather than 4, which requires most checkpoints present.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well organized for a short single-purpose skill (identity, best-for, workflow, attribution), but the body's central reference — the bundle "bundled under `source/`" and "Read `source/index.html`" — does not exist in the skill directory (no `source/`, `references/`, `scripts/`, or `assets/` present), so the one reference it relies on is unresolvable. Structure exists but the bundle navigation is effectively broken, matching 'Some structure but could be better organized' rather than 4, where references would be mostly clear and resolvable.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("'Swiss Grid' HyperFrames motion video — Structured grid layout") but contains no concrete capability verbs or actions; scoring only what is explicitly stated, it names the domain with minimal/generic action content, matching the anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'. It is not a 3 because even 1-2 explicit actions (e.g., 'renders', 'customizes copy') are absent, and not a 1 because the domain is named specifically rather than being pure abstract language.

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit and specific ("Use this plugin when the user wants a 'Swiss Grid' HyperFrames motion video") but the 'what' is only weakly conveyed by the fragment 'Structured grid layout'. Both are present with one side improvable, matching anchor 4 ('Has both what and when; one could be more explicit'); it is not 5 because the what lacks concrete capability statements, and not 3 because the trigger clause is explicit rather than missing or merely implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords exist ("Swiss Grid", "motion video", "Structured grid layout") but common variations and synonyms a user might naturally say (e.g., 'video template', 'title card', 'Swiss design', 'grid typography') are missing, and 'HyperFrames'/'plugin' are technical jargon. This matches 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms' rather than 4, where only a few natural terms would be missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Swiss Grid" + "HyperFrames motion video" is a clear niche with distinct triggers, but the description sits within an implied family of similar HyperFrames video templates (the body cites `templates/frame-swiss-grid` from a registry), creating minor overlap risk with closely related sibling templates. This matches 'Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills' rather than 5, where conflict risk would be minimal.