Conciseness

The body is lean (~30 lines): terse Quick Reference bullets, one-line Check/Fix directives, and a clean pointer to the reference. Not 5 because the opening sentence 'Long chains of dependent requests delay the initial rendering of the page, as each resource must wait for its parent to be fetched and processed' explains a concept Claude already knows and duplicates the definition in references/rule.md; not 3 because that single sentence is the only padding and everything else earns its place.

Actionability

The body names concrete techniques and tools ('Inline critical CSS', 'Use `preload` hints', 'using Lighthouse or WebPageTest') but provides no code, no commands, and no report/audit names — 'Identify long chains... using Lighthouse or WebPageTest' lacks the specific step (which audit, how to trace initiators), and all executable detail is deferred to references/rule.md. Not 4 because the body itself contains no executable guidance; not 2 because specific remediation techniques are given and the pointer leads to fully executable examples.

Workflow Clarity

A clear Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sequence, with an explicit measurement checkpoint: 'describe the measurement method used to confirm the issue' (echoing the description's verify-before-recommending directive). Not 5 because there is no post-fix re-verification loop in the body (references/rule.md has a Verification section, but the body never signals that step); not 3 because the measure-before-flagging checkpoint is explicitly stated rather than implicit, and this is a non-destructive audit skill so the validation cap doesn't apply.

Progressive Disclosure

Textbook structure: the body is a concise overview (Quick Reference, Check, Fix, Explain, Code Review) with a single clearly signaled one-level-deep pointer — 'For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see `references/rule.md`' — and that file exists with substantive, non-redundant content (executable HTML/CSS examples, best practices, tools, verification steps). Content is appropriately split and navigation is easy.

Specificity

Concrete actions are named — 'auditing slow page loads, heavy assets, or rendering delays', 'Verify the actual bottleneck in DevTools, Lighthouse, or field data', 'before recommending changes' — along with specific tooling. Not 5 because coverage is incomplete (the skill's fix/code-review capabilities from the body are not described); not 3 because it lists several specific actions rather than only 1-2.

Completeness

Both parts are explicit: 'when' via 'Use when auditing slow page loads, heavy assets, or rendering delays' (concrete triggers) and 'what' via 'Verify the actual bottleneck in DevTools, Lighthouse, or field data before recommending changes'. Not 5 because the 'what' is framed as a behavioral directive rather than a crisp capability statement and doesn't convey the skill's full scope (fix guidance, code review); the 'when' itself is more specific than anchor 4 implies, placing this between 4 and 5.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrasings are present: 'slow page loads', 'rendering delays', 'bottleneck', 'Lighthouse', 'DevTools', 'field data'. Not 5 because common variations users actually say are missing ('page speed', 'site performance', 'Core Web Vitals', 'LCP/FCP', 'performance audit'); not 3 because multiple natural trigger phrases are covered, not just the domain keyword.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche term 'Minimize critical request chains' names a distinct rule, but the leading triggers 'slow page loads, heavy assets, or rendering delays' are generic performance complaints that would equally match sibling web-performance skills (image optimization, lazy loading, bundle size). Not 4 because overlap risk with closely related performance skills is more than minor; not 2 because the rule-specific anchor term and named tools give it a real niche.