Conciseness

The pass structure, templates, and slop blacklist are dense and specific, but roughly 40+ lines ('How users actually behave', 'Three laws of usability', 'The trunk test', 'The goodwill reservoir') restate well-known Krug/Nielsen usability principles Claude already knows, which is more than the 'minor instances' of the 4 anchor. It is above 2 because the majority of the body is applied, task-specific guidance rather than padding.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully executable: a literal rating script ('Information Architecture: 4/10' → gap → fix → re-rate), fill-in table templates for states, journey storyboard, and deferred decisions, plus checkable hard-rejection criteria and yes/no litmus checks. This matches the 5 anchor's 'copy-paste ready' standard applied to instructions; nothing stays at the vague-direction level of 4.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is explicit (Step 0 scope → Passes 1–7 → Output table) with a built-in feedback loop (rate, state the gap, fix, re-rate until 10 or 'good enough'), re-run rules (8+ gets a quick pass), and approval checkpoints ('get approval before editing the plan', one gap per question). This matches the 5 anchor's explicit validation and feedback loops; 4's 'minor validation gaps' does not apply since re-rating is enforced after every fix.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well-organized with headers and templates, but ~150 lines of reference-grade material (the AI-slop blacklist, landing/app/universal rules, and usability heuristics) are inlined in a ~280-line SKILL.md with no bundle files at all. This fits the 3 anchor (content that should be separate is inline); not 2, since structure and navigation are genuinely good, and not 4, because the bulk detail belongs in references/ files for a skill this long.

Specificity

The description enumerates all seven review dimensions ('information architecture, interaction states, emotional arc, AI-slop risk, design-system alignment, responsive and accessibility coverage, and unresolved decisions') and the concrete mechanism ('rated 0-10 with an explicit statement of what would make it a 10, then the plan is edited to get there') — comprehensive coverage of specific actions, matching the 5 anchor rather than 4, whose coverage has minor gaps.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: 'what' is the seven-pass 0-10 rating-and-edit loop, and 'when' is a literal 'Use when a plan has a UI surface and you want the design gaps closed before code is written' clause, plus a negative boundary ('Not for auditing a live site'). This clearly matches the 5 anchor; the 4 anchor's weaker 'when' does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms like 'plan', 'design doc', 'UI surface', and 'design gaps' are present, but common variations a user might say — 'spec', 'wireframe', 'mockup', 'prototype' — are absent. This fits the 4 anchor (good coverage, a few natural terms missing) rather than 5 (comprehensive synonyms), though it is clearly above 3 since the included terms are ones users would naturally say.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche — pre-implementation review of written plans through a designer's lens — and explicitly rules out the nearest competing trigger ('Not for auditing a live site'), so conflict with a live-site design-audit skill is minimal. Fits the 5 anchor; not 4, since the overlap risk with closely related skills is addressed by the explicit boundary.