Conciseness

The body is lean: it states the JSON requirement, the import, and the Remotion-specific Caption type, then routes to three reference files with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Every token earns its place.

Actionability

The import statement and full Caption type definition are concrete, but the actual executable steps for transcribing, displaying, and importing are deferred to the referenced files rather than given in the body, leaving key details incomplete.

Workflow Clarity

Three labeled sections provide a clear dispatch to distinct tasks, but there is no sequence or validation checkpoint guidance; the routing is present yet the per-task workflow lives entirely in the references.

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is well-signaled and one level deep (## sections each linking a single .md), but the referenced files transcribe-captions.md, display-captions.md, and import-srt-captions.md are absent from the bundle, so navigation hits dead ends.

Specificity

"Transcribing, displaying and animating captions" names the domain and three concrete actions, matching the anchor that lists several specific actions with minor coverage gaps; not a 5 since it omits importing/generating and other caption operations.

Completeness

The description gives a clear "what" but no "Use when..." or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, so per the rubric guideline completeness is capped at 3.

Trigger Term Quality

"captions" plus the verb triggers are relevant, but common synonyms like "subtitles" and file extensions such as ".srt" are missing, leaving keyword coverage incomplete rather than comprehensive.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The captions-for-video niche is mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against related media skills; it lacks the explicit trigger phrases that would lift it to a 5.