Conciseness

The body is lean — short imperatives ("Declare your layer stack at the top of your main CSS file") and bullet lists — with one minor instance of over-explanation: the intro paragraph about specificity conflicts and "!important" arms races explains a concept Claude already knows and duplicates the "Why It Matters" section of references/rule.md verbatim. Trimming or deferring that paragraph would reach 5.

Actionability

Concrete, specific guidance exists — "Introduce @layer declarations for reset, base, components, and utilities" and review heuristics like "!important declarations, excessively specific selectors (more than two class selectors), and inline styles" — but the body contains no executable code or commands at all; every copy-paste-ready example (layer-stack declaration syntax, migration steps) is deferred to the reference file, leaving key implementation details out of the body.

Workflow Clarity

The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sections form a coherent, well-defined sequence with detection checkpoints in the Code Review section. However, there is no post-fix verification step in the body — the detailed Verification steps exist in references/rule.md (DevTools layer inspection, !important search) but are never surfaced or referenced from the workflow.

Progressive Disclosure

A concise under-50-line overview with well-organized sections and a single clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference — "For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see references/rule.md" — and the referenced file exists and contains exactly that content. Content is appropriately split and navigation is trivial.

Specificity

The description lists three concrete, distinct actions — "reviewing a CSS architecture for specificity issues", "setting up a design system", and "migrating a large codebase from utility-first to a layered architecture" — in a clearly named domain. It falls short of 5 because it never states what the skill itself does (e.g., introduce @layer declarations), only the triggering scenarios.

Completeness

The "when" is explicit and detailed ("Use when reviewing... setting up... or migrating..."), but the description is entirely a trigger statement: the "what" — what the skill actually does — is never explicitly stated, only weakly implied by the embedded verbs. This matches the anchor where the what is present but weak, and keeps it below 4.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases users would say are present: "specificity issues", "design system", "utility-first", "layered architecture", "migrating a large codebase". Not 5 because the most direct keywords a user would mention — "@layer", "cascade layers", "Tailwind", "!important" — are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The CSS specificity/cascade-layer niche is well differentiated with distinct triggers, but "setting up a design system" is broad enough to overlap with general CSS-review or Tailwind-migration skills, so it is not a clear 5.