Conciseness

The body is directive and free of concept over-explanation, but key rules are repeated: screenshot inspect/accept appears in at least four places ("Save and inspect each screenshot", "Inspect the screenshot before accepting it", "Inspect the saved screenshot file before upload or handoff", the Figma upload rule) and "Keep a local copy even when Figma succeeds" is stated twice. This is more than the minor trimming of a 4; the redundancy could be cut by a third.

Actionability

Concrete, executable instruction-only guidance: a 13-step capture loop, specific artifact conventions ("01-start.png", "02-form-filled.png"), exact Figma layout parameters ("200px between each one... new row every 15 screenshots... 600px"), and a defined final-response format. Not 5 because some steps remain high-level ("Observe behavior that matters for the audit") and the actual capture mechanics are delegated to other skills without inline specifics.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is explicit (Route steps 1–6, then the per-step 1–13 procedure) with genuine validation checkpoints and a feedback loop: inspect each screenshot, "Reject the screenshot if it is blank, loading, cropped, blocked, or showing the wrong state" and capture again. An acceptance-checks checklist and a blockers section close the workflow with explicit failure handling.

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure with a real, well-signaled one-level-deep reference ("Follow [references/design-audit-framework.md](references/design-audit-framework.md) when deciding what to inspect" — the file exists and is well organized). Not 5 because the 160-line body inlines detailed procedural material (the full capture loop, Figma placement rules) that could live in reference files, and several referenced paths (../index/SKILL.md, ../user-context/SKILL.md, ../../references/critical-overrides.md) are not verifiable within this bundle.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — "capturing screenshots first, then reporting UX, design, and accessibility findings inline from that evidence" plus conditional Figma board creation — with comprehensive coverage of the skill's behavior. Not 4 because coverage of what the skill does is complete rather than having minor gaps.

Completeness

Clearly and explicitly answers both: the "what" ("capturing screenshots first, then reporting UX, design, and accessibility findings inline") and the "when" via an explicit "Use when the user asks to audit, review, critique..." clause with concrete trigger phrases.

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural-term coverage: "audit, review, critique, inspect, assess, analyze, evaluate, or give feedback on" plus concrete surface synonyms ("flow, journey, workflow, funnel, onboarding path, checkout path, settings path, screen"). These are exactly the phrases a user would naturally say.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The "product experience" scoping and the Figma boundary ("Use Figma only when the user explicitly asks for a board") make it mostly distinct, but the generic verbs "review", "analyze", and "evaluate" create minor overlap risk with code-review or general analysis skills. Not 5 because those bare verbs are shared triggers with other common skills.