Conciseness

The body is lean and imperative throughout — "Add the WAV file to the root of the repo", "Run `bun generate.ts`", "Use camelCase for the variable name" — with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows. It is not a 5 because a few sentences ("The `.env` may be missing if we are in a worktree, but on the main non-worktree branch it should be present") are tangential asides that don't earn their place on every invocation.

Actionability

Most steps give executable, copy-paste-ready material: `bun generate.ts`, the exact `soundEffects` entry shape, `bun packages/docs/generate-sfx-waveforms.ts`, `cd packages/sfx && bun run make`, plus a naming table. Not a 5: step 1.4 says only "Deploy" with no command, and step 3 is a checklist of required doc elements without a concrete example to copy.

Workflow Clarity

Seven explicitly ordered steps with a clear dependency constraint ("### 1. Add to `remotion.media` repo (must be done first)") give a complete sequence, but there are no validation or verification checkpoints anywhere. Per the rubric guideline, the waveform regeneration in step 5 is a batch operation across every exported sound effect with no post-check, which caps workflow clarity at 3. Not a 2 because the sequence is fully defined with no gaps.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well organized (Prerequisites, Steps, Naming conventions, Version), no bundle files exist, and body references point to real repo files (`generate.ts`, `whip.mdx`, `packages/docs/sidebars.ts`) rather than to missing bundled files. Not a 5: the file is ~95 lines (over the under-50-line simple-skill case) and step 3's nine-item checklist is dense inline content that a full example page reference would offload better.

Specificity

The full description is "Add a new sound effect to @remotion/sfx" — it names a concrete single action ("Add") and a specific target package, matching the anchor "Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive". It is not a 4 because only one action is stated; the actual procedure (export, doc page, registration, build) is not hinted at.

Completeness

The "what" is clear ("Add a new sound effect to @remotion/sfx"), but the "when" is entirely absent — no "Use when..." or equivalent trigger guidance, which per the judging guidelines caps completeness at 3. Not a 4 because there is not even a weakly implied "when" clause.

Trigger Term Quality

"sound effect" and "sfx" (via "@remotion/sfx") are natural terms a user would say, but coverage stops there — no "audio", ".wav", or other common variations, matching "Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms". Not a 4 because two terms is thin coverage rather than "a few natural terms missing" from a broad set.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The scoped package name "@remotion/sfx" makes this a clear niche unlikely to trigger for unrelated skills — "Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk". Not a 5 because "sound effect" alone is a fairly generic term and the description carries no explicit trigger phrases that would separate it from a broader audio/media skill.