Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes competence — no tutorials on what a dashboard is, no library introductions — but mobile guidance recurs across five separate sections (Overview mobile default, Default Question 6, Real-Time alert rules, Layout mobile bullets, the mobile interaction paragraph, and mobile Output Expectations), which could be consolidated into the mobile foundations reference. This fits 'Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' better than the 4 anchor's 'minor instances'.

Actionability

The guidance is unusually concrete for an instruction-only skill: named renderer choices ('SVG for semantics and annotation', 'Canvas2D for dense 2D raster workloads', 'WebGL, deck.gl, PixiJS, Sigma.js, or Three.js'), specific techniques ('ring buffers, viewport culling, and multi-resolution summaries'), a hard number ('16 ms frames'), and named mobile patterns ('bottom sheets, drawers, tabs'). Not 5 because a few bullets remain abstract directives ('Design dashboards around situation awareness, not around maximum tile count') with no operationalization.

Workflow Clarity

The body is organized thematically (Default Questions → design rules by area → Output Expectations) rather than as a sequenced process; the Default Questions and Output Expectations sections imply a discover-then-design-then-verify flow, but no explicit step order or checkpoints connect them. This matches 'Steps listed but validation gaps; sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit'; not 4, which requires a clear sequence with most checkpoints present.

Progressive Disclosure

The References section is well-organized (grouped into 'Shared theory' vs 'Skill references'), all four local references exist as one-level-deep ~30-line files, and the ~140-line body appropriately holds core rules while detail lives in the bundle. Not 5 because interaction-pattern content is duplicated between body bullets and references/interaction-patterns.md, and the external '../../references/foundations/' and '../testing-data-visualizations/' paths cannot be verified from the bundle itself.

Specificity

The description names the domain precisely ('dashboards and live visualization systems') but offers only one concrete action verb ('Design'); the remaining phrases ('monitoring views', 'streaming charts', 'downsampling') are trigger nouns rather than capabilities. This matches the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' — not 4, which would require several listed actions like 'extract, fill, merge, convert'.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: what ('Design dashboards and live visualization systems') and when ('Use when the user needs monitoring views, streaming charts, coordinated interactions, downsampling, or performance-aware operational visualization'), with concrete trigger phrases and third-person voice. This directly matches the top anchor; the 'when' clause is present and specific, so the 4 anchor's 'when could be more explicit' caveat does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

Trigger terms ('monitoring views', 'streaming charts', 'coordinated interactions', 'downsampling', 'performance-aware operational visualization') are natural phrases a user would plausibly say, matching 'Good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing'. Not 5 because common synonyms like 'real-time', 'live data', 'telemetry', or 'KPI' are absent from the description itself.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The real-time/operational-monitoring niche is clear and unlikely to fire for unrelated skills, matching 'Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills'. Not 5 because the skill sits in a family of sibling visualization skills (testing, storytelling, accessibility, foundations) and broad terms like 'charts' or 'dashboard' create minor overlap with those siblings.