Conciseness

The body is dense and lean — it names Vega-Lite, deck.gl, Structurizr, ScrollTrigger, etc. without explaining them, and every section carries routing or gating instructions rather than padding. It falls just below anchor 5 because the anti-atmosphere guidance ('broad translucent brush strokes, wispy ribbons, bokeh/orbs, cinematic wallpaper, stock-photo haze, or decorative gradients' in the Overview and 'broad brush strokes, wispy ribbons, bokeh/orbs, one-hue drama, cinematic wallpaper' in Quality Gates) is stated twice and could be trimmed to one place.

Actionability

As an instruction-only skill it gives concrete, executable guidance: a named routing matrix with specific technologies, conditional reference reads ('When routing is unclear, read ./references/route-by-problem.md'), and a Response Contract specifying exactly what to state for recommendations vs implementation. It matches anchor 4 ('mostly executable guidance... with minor gaps') rather than 5 because there is no worked example of a routing decision or a filled-out Response Contract output.

Workflow Clarity

The Router Workflow is a clearly sequenced 9-step list with explicit fallbacks ('When routing is unclear, read...'; 'When stack choice is unclear, read...'), and Quality Gates plus the Response Contract function as checkpoints. It is not 5 because there is no explicit validation step confirming the chosen route or deliverable against the Quality Gates before responding — checkpoints are listed but not wired into the workflow as verify-then-proceed loops.

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure: the body is a true overview, the three local references (route-by-problem.md, default-stack-selection.md, prompt-routing-examples.md — all present in the bundle) are one level deep and clearly signaled with when-to-read conditions, and deeper material is appropriately external. It falls short of anchor 5 because the final References section is a categorized but flat dump of ~17 external ../../ foundation/template files with no per-file when-to-read guidance, and those external paths cannot be verified within the skill's own bundle.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('web data visualization') and one concrete action ('Route'), plus a broad list of specific work types ('chart choice, visual critique, dashboards, maps or geospatial views, Gantt timelines, UML/software diagrams, scrollytelling, reports or exports, testing, accessibility, browser implementation'). It sits between anchors 3 and 4 but noticeably above the midpoint, so 4: several specific capabilities are listed with minor gaps (the single routing verb is never unpacked into what routing produces). Not 5 because it lists one action verb rather than multiple distinct concrete actions like the PDF example's 'extract, fill, merge, convert'.

Completeness

Both what ('Route web data visualization work') and when ('Use when the user needs chart choice, visual critique, dashboards...') are explicit, and the when-clause enumerates concrete trigger phrases. This clearly matches the anchor-5 example structure of 'what. Use when... with concrete triggers'; it is above anchor 4 because the when-clause is specific and enumerated rather than generic.

Trigger Term Quality

Trigger terms are natural and specific — 'dashboards', 'maps or geospatial views', 'Gantt timelines', 'UML/software diagrams', 'scrollytelling' are phrases users would actually say. Good keyword coverage with a few natural terms missing (e.g. 'graph', 'plot', 'figure', 'data viz', 'visualization'), which matches anchor 4 rather than the comprehensive synonym coverage of anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description is scoped to web data visualization with distinct trigger phrases, so it is mostly distinct with minor overlap risk. It is not 5 because generic trigger terms like 'testing', 'accessibility', 'reports or exports', and 'browser implementation' could plausibly fire on non-visualization testing/accessibility/development requests, and it overlaps with the sibling specialist skills it routes to.