Conciseness

The body is short with light section structure and no padding of concepts Claude already knows. It is not score 5 because the opening "One can build apps with Remotion. It is possible to have a simple form and hook it up to a render..." is filler, and phrases like "for help choosing a template or framework" and "for more information about the Player" restate their section headings. Not score 3 because there is no noticeable over-explanation beyond those minor instances.

Actionability

The body contains no code, no commands, and no executable steps — it only describes: "One can build apps", "This component allows embedding", "There are client-side and server-side rendering options available". This matches anchor 1 ("Entirely vague or abstract; no concrete code or commands; only describes rather than instructs"); score 2 would require at least high-level hints toward specific steps, which are absent.

Workflow Clarity

There is at best an implicit topical order (choose template/framework, then Player, then rendering) with many gaps: no steps, no commands, and no validation or checkpoints anywhere. This fits anchor 2 ("Rough sequence present but many gaps; steps poorly defined; validation absent"); not score 1 because the sections do form a loose, coherent progression rather than none at all.

Progressive Disclosure

The SKILL.md itself is a lean overview with clearly signaled one-level-deep references ([Choosing a framework](framework.md), [Player](player.md), [Rendering](rendering.md)), but scoring against the actual bundle shows none of these files exist — there is no references/ directory and no framework.md, player.md, or rendering.md anywhere in the bundle, so the navigation paths are broken (the Vue/Angular/Svelte entries point to external URLs instead of bundled files). This fits anchor 3 ("Some structure but could be better organized; references present but not clearly signaled") — the structure is right, but the referenced content is missing, which is more than the minor gaps of anchor 4.

Specificity

"Build an app with Remotion" names the domain (Remotion) and one action (build an app), but "an app" is generic with no concrete actions like rendering videos, embedding the Player, or using templates. This matches anchor 2 ("Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic"); it is not score 3 because there is no concrete, specific action enumerated, and not score 1 because it is not pure abstract language — a domain and an action are named.

Completeness

The "what" is present but vague ("Build an app" — what kind of app, doing what?) and the "when" is completely absent, with no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance. This matches anchor 2 ("Has a vague 'what' and no 'when'"); not score 3 because "Build an app with Remotion" is not a clear enumeration of what the skill does, and the missing-when cap applies regardless.

Trigger Term Quality

The only specific keyword is the proper noun "Remotion"; the words "build" and "app" are generic. The natural phrases a user would actually say — "video", "video app", "React video", "video editor", "video rendering" — are entirely absent, matching anchor 2 ("one or two generic keywords; missing the natural phrases users say"). Not score 3 because missing "video" entirely is more than just lacking synonyms of a covered term.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Remotion" is a distinctive proper noun, so the description is unlikely to trigger for unrelated skills (low conflict risk). Not score 5 because "Build an app" is generic and the absence of "video" terms means video-related requests not naming Remotion might not match this skill at all; it still fits anchor 4 ("Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills").