Conciseness

Lean and efficient across ~60 lines: every phase adds non-obvious, project-specific detail (en_US.js vs i18n.ts location rules, camelCase key naming, computed-vs-data rewrite) with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Not below 5 because nothing here is padded or inferable — even the exclusions list ('CSS class names, HTML attributes, test IDs...') prevents wasted work.

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: a copy-paste verification grep, concrete before/after code for the data()-to-computed rewrite, exact transformation patterns ('<p>Text</p>' → "<p>{{ $t('namespace.key') }}</p>"), and key-naming examples ('Search for a step' → searchForStep). Not a 4: no pseudocode or missing key details — the common cases (template text, bare interpolation, data() strings) are all covered with runnable specifics.

Workflow Clarity

Four clearly sequenced phases with an explicit validation checkpoint (Phase 4: count remaining strings 'must be 0', run verification grep, report from-X-to-0). Not a 5 because there is no error-recovery feedback loop — no instruction for what to do if the grep still finds strings after Phase 3; not a 3 because validation is explicitly present and sequenced, satisfying the batch-operation cap guideline.

Progressive Disclosure

A short single-file skill with well-organized section headers (Audit, Add Translation Keys, Replace, Verify) and no bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent) and no need for external references. Per the rubric's simple-skill guidance, well-organized sections alone earn the top score; nothing is inlined that belongs in a separate file.

Specificity

Names two concrete actions — 'replacing all hardcoded strings with $t() calls and adding translations to i18n.ts or en_US.js' — at file- and API-level specificity (names $t(), i18n.ts, en_US.js). Not a 5 because coverage is limited to those two actions (no mention of auditing data()/script strings or verification), and not a 3 because the actions are far more concrete than anchor 3's generic example ('Processes PDF files and extracts content').

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what — 'Internationalize Vue component templates by replacing all hardcoded strings with $t() calls and adding translations to i18n.ts or en_US.js' — and when — 'Use when asked to internationalize, i18n, or translate strings in Vue templates', with concrete trigger phrases. This matches the anchor-5 good example structure exactly; a 4 would require the 'when' clause to be less explicit than it is here.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural trigger phrases users would say: 'asked to internationalize, i18n, or translate strings in Vue templates'. Not a 5 because common variations like 'localize', 'translations', or the '.vue' file extension are missing; not a 3 because it goes beyond a single keyword with multiple natural synonyms scoped to the Vue domain.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (Vue component templates, $t() calls, i18n.ts/en_US.js) with triggers scoped to 'in Vue templates', giving minimal conflict risk with generic translation or text-manipulation skills. Not a 4: unlike 'Works with PDF and Word document files', there is no adjacent overlapping format or sibling skill the triggers would ambiguously match.