The body is a lean, rule-dense reference with terse directives like 'Animate properties using `useCurrentFrame()` and `interpolate()`' and 'CSS transitions or animations are FORBIDDEN', assuming Claude's competence and never explaining what Remotion or React is; every line earns its place, fitting 'lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence'. The only large block is the effects-name catalog, which is actionable reference material rather than padding, so it stays at score 3 rather than 2.

It provides fully executable tsx components (e.g., `FadeIn`, `MyComposition`), exact CLI commands (`npx remotion still [composition-id] --scale=0.25 --frame=30`, `npx remotion add @remotion/media`), specific named APIs (`Interactive.Div`, `Easing.bezier(0.16, 1, 0.3, 1)`), and good/bad (👍/👎) contrast examples, matching 'fully executable code/commands; copy-paste ready'.

Though primarily a rule reference, the guidance that does involve sequencing is unambiguous: the visual-effects section gives an explicit ordered priority (1→2→3→4) and the preview/render-check sections state clear conditions ('Skip it for trivial edits', 'Only do this if you think the user wants to see the preview'). As a non-destructive reference skill it does not require validation feedback loops, so clear conditional ordering here warrants score 3 rather than 2.

On paper the body is an overview pointing to ~30 separate one-level-deep files, each clearly signaled with 'See [file.md]' plus a one-line topic description, but the referenced bundle files (text-highlights.md, voiceover.md, effects.md, etc.) do not exist on disk — there is no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directory and no sibling .md files. Well-signaled but broken references cannot reach score 3, and it sits above score 1 because the intended structure and navigation are clear and shallow.

The phrase 'Best practices for writing Remotion React Markup' names the domain but only implies a single abstract action ('writing... markup') rather than listing concrete capabilities, matching the 'names domain and some actions, but not comprehensive' anchor; it is not score 1 because it does specify a clear domain, and not score 3 because no multiple specific actions are enumerated.

It gives a weak 'what' (best practices for writing markup) but no explicit 'when to use it' trigger clause, and the rubric caps completeness at 2 when a 'Use when...' clause is missing; it is not score 1 because some 'what' is present, and not score 3 because there is no explicit when.

'Remotion React Markup' provides a relevant named keyword but is phrased as a topic rather than how users naturally phrase a need, and it omits common variations, fitting 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations'; it is above score 1 because the keyword is meaningful, and below score 3 because coverage of natural terms is thin.

'Remotion React Markup' defines a fairly distinct niche unlikely to broadly conflict, but it overlaps with the cross-referenced 'remotion-best-practices' skill, matching 'somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills'; not score 1 because the niche is clear, not score 3 because the overlap with a sibling skill keeps some conflict risk.