Conciseness

The body is very lean (~20 lines, no concept explanations Claude already knows), so it respects the token budget. Not 5 because the opening sentence 'Skill for developing Lit web components in the Punkt design system... Covers creating, modifying, and testing components...' duplicates the frontmatter description nearly verbatim — a token that does not earn its place.

Actionability

The body contains no code, commands, or quick-start guidance — only a numbered list of 15 links ('1. [Architecture Overview](architecture-overview.md)' etc.) as high-level pointers, and none of those files exist in the bundle. Not 1 because the links are specific navigation targets rather than vague description; not 3 because there is no partial executable guidance at all in SKILL.md.

Workflow Clarity

The numbered section list implies a rough reading order ending in '15. [Checklist: Adding a New Element](checklist-new-element.md)', but no actual steps, sequence, or validation checkpoints are written in the body, and the checklist that would define the workflow is in a missing file. Not 1 because a rough logical progression is present; not 3 because no explicit step sequence with checkpoints exists in the body.

Progressive Disclosure

References are one level deep and clearly signaled, but the body delegates 100% of the content to 15 referenced files, none of which are present in the bundle (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories exist) — navigation is effectively broken. Not 1 because the overview itself is well-organized, not a monolith or nested chain; not 3 because the references are not merely unclearly signaled — they are unverifiable/missing.

Specificity

Names the domain ('Lit web components in the Punkt design system (@oslokommune/punkt-elements)') plus three concrete actions ('creating, modifying, and testing components') and a concrete path ('/packages/elements/src/components/'). Anchor 4 fits: several specific actions with minor gaps; not 5 because coverage is not comprehensive (e.g., no mention of building, linting, or reviewing).

Completeness

Explicitly answers 'what' ('Developing Lit web components... Covers creating, modifying, and testing components') and 'when' ('Use when working on Punkt Elements source code'). Anchor 4 fits because the 'when' clause could be more specific (e.g., mention component names or user phrasings); not 3 since a 'Use when...' clause is present, not 5 since the trigger phrase is narrow.

Trigger Term Quality

Contains good, brand-specific keywords ('Lit web components', 'Punkt design system', '@oslokommune/punkt-elements', 'Punkt Elements source code') users of this codebase would naturally say. Not 5 because natural variations and synonyms are missing (e.g., 'add a new component', 'elements package', file extensions); not 3 because multiple relevant, distinctive terms are present.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche defined by design system name, scoped package name, and source path; triggers ('Punkt Elements source code') are distinct and would not plausibly fire for another skill. Matches anchor 5 (clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk).