Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient, but the intro paragraph ("Google explicitly recommends descriptive filenames... A file named red-leather-wallet.jpg gives search engines context") and the Explain section ("Google explicitly states it uses filename as a signal... product-red-leather-wallet.jpg gives Google context") repeat the same SEO rationale nearly verbatim, and Check and Code Review overlap in scope. The Code Review section also carries misfit boilerplate ("format choice, sizing, or loading behavior") that earns nothing for a filename-naming rule.

Actionability

Check gives concrete scan targets ("<img src>, CSS url(), import statements, and public/assets directories") and five enumerated problem patterns with examples; Fix gives five concrete steps with a worked example ("rename IMG_1234.jpg to blue-running-shoes-side-view.jpg") and says to provide a migration script. Minor gaps: no commands are shown inline (grep/sed/migration script live only in references/rule.md), and the migration script is mentioned but never instantiated — mostly executable guidance with small gaps, appropriate for an instruction-only skill.

Workflow Clarity

The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sequence is readable and each section's steps are enumerated, but Fix is a batch operation ("Rename image files... Update all references to the renamed file in HTML, CSS, and JavaScript") with no validation or feedback step — nothing like grepping for stale references or rebuilding/testing after the rename. Per the rubric, a batch/destructive workflow without validation is capped at 3.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise ~30-line overview (Quick Reference, Check, Fix) with a clearly signaled, one-level-deep pointer — "see `references/rule.md`" — and that file exists, contains the implementation details (batch rename script, reference-updating sed commands, CMS sanitiser), with no nested references. Not a 5 because the intro/Explain rationale is duplicated verbatim in the reference's "Why It Matters" section and the thin Code Review section is boilerplate, so the split is not perfectly clean.

Specificity

Concrete actions are named ("reviewing image assets, markup, and CDN or build transforms"; "Check encoded size, rendered size, loading strategy, and above-the-fold impact"), but the listed actions describe generic image-delivery optimization, not this skill's actual capability — flagging and renaming generic image filenames and updating references. The core action of the skill never appears as an action, only as an embedded rule name.

Completeness

An explicit trigger is present ("Use when reviewing image assets..."), but the stated "what" — "Check encoded size, rendered size, loading strategy, and above-the-fold impact together" — misdescribes what the skill actually does, and the clause "related to Use descriptive image filenames" is a garbled verbatim rule-name insertion. The when is explicit; the what is misleading rather than merely imprecise, which sits at the level of a clear-but-incomplete pairing rather than anchor 4's "both present, when could be more specific".

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords are present ("image assets", "image filenames", "markup", "CDN"), but common natural variations are missing — "image SEO", "naming convention", "rename images" — and the boilerplate terms ("encoded size", "rendered size", "loading strategy", "above-the-fold") pull toward the wrong trigger set for a filename-naming skill.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Nearly the entire description is shared image-optimization boilerplate ("image assets, markup, and CDN or build transforms... encoded size, rendered size, loading strategy, and above-the-fold impact") that would equally fire sibling image-delivery skills; only the awkwardly embedded rule name "Use descriptive image filenames" distinguishes it, giving high overlap risk with many similar skills.