Conciseness

The component-first rule is stated five times — '### Component-First Rule (MANDATORY)', Implementation Workflow steps 1–2 ('Check the component inventory', 'If a shadcn component is missing, generate it'), the Do list ('use existing shadcn components for every standard control', 'generate missing shadcn components via CLI'), the Don't list ('do not hand-write a `<select>`...'), and the QA Checklist ('Does the change use shadcn components for every standard control?'). Do/Don't/QA largely restate Core Visual Rules and Interaction Rules. This is more than the 'minor instances' of anchor 4 — a consolidation pass would cut roughly a third of the body — but the writing itself is directive, not padded explanation, so it is not anchor 2.

Actionability

Concrete and executable for a design skill: a need→component decision map ('Need a boolean toggle? → Use `Switch`'), an exact install command ('bunx --bun shadcn@latest add <component> --yes'), real paths ('src/components/layout/settings-dialog-sections.tsx', 'src/globals.css'), and specific utilities ('.sidebar-liquid-glass', 'h-7/h-8', 'supports-backdrop-filter:backdrop-blur-xl'). Not a 5 because there is no code example showing token/component usage in an actual JSX snippet, and some rules remain judgment calls ('Keep radii moderate and purposeful').

Workflow Clarity

The 8-step 'Implementation Workflow' is clearly sequenced with concrete commands, includes explicit validation steps ('Check the result in both light and dark themes', 'Check at desktop width and at narrower split-panel widths'), and is capped by a dedicated 'QA Checklist' that functions as a verification gate including doc-sync checks. This is not a destructive/batch skill, so no cap applies, and the checklist-plus-checkpoint structure matches the anchor-5 example's explicit validation pattern.

Progressive Disclosure

Well-sectioned with clear headers, no nested references, and all guidance one level deep. Not a 5 because at ~140 lines it exceeds the simple-skill exception, and the full 'shadcn Component Inventory' table plus some rule detail (e.g. the long Do/Don't lists) duplicate information that 'src/components/ui/' and 'src/components/ui/index.ts' already expose — content that could move to a reference file. Not a 3 because structure and navigation are genuinely good, not merely present.

Specificity

Concrete actions are explicit: 'Apply Stave's desktop-first design system', 'Always use existing shadcn components and the radix-vega preset first', 'never hand-roll a control that shadcn already provides', with a named surface list (dialogs, sidebars, empty states, settings, prompt input). Not a 4 because the actions, scope, and constraints are all specific rather than leaving coverage gaps; not lower because this is the comprehensive end of the anchor set.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: what — 'Apply Stave's desktop-first design system' with a specific constraint policy; when — 'when a task changes UI, layout, theme, dialogs, sidebars... in this repo' plus 'Use for prompts like...'. Matches the anchor-5 example's structure of concrete what followed by an explicit trigger clause with named phrases.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-term coverage: 'UI', 'redesign', 'polish', 'sidebar', 'dialog', 'settings', and the Korean '디자인'. Not a 5 because common variations users would say are missing — 'design system', 'theme', 'dark mode', 'empty state', 'CSS' — which the anchor-5 example (synonyms and file extensions) expects; not a 3 because the present terms are ones users naturally say in this domain.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The product name ('Stave's'), repo scoping ('in this repo'), and preset name ('radix-vega') create a clear niche with distinct triggers. Not a 5 because generic terms like 'UI', 'polish', and 'redesign' could also fire general frontend/design skills; well above a 3 because the repo-local and brand-specific framing makes wrong-skill triggering unlikely.