Conciseness

The ~30-line body is efficient: bullet-based Quick Reference, tight Check/Fix/Explain/Code Review sections, and no padded explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Not 5 because of minor trims available: the opening cognitive-load rationale sentence, the overlap between the Check and Code Review sections (both say "review this multi-step flow for information requested more than once"), and the rule-page URL duplicated from the frontmatter.

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and executable for an instruction-only skill: "Flag fields that should be auto-populated or selectable from previously entered data", "Auto-populate repeat fields, add 'same as' toggles", and "Flag exact steps where previously entered information is required again without auto-population or a selection mechanism". Not 5 because the systematic detection procedure (map each step, list every required field, flag values appearing more than once) lives only in references/rule.md rather than the body.

Workflow Clarity

The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sections plus "Review checkout, signup, onboarding, and support flows step by step" give a coherent, ordered workflow for a simple single-purpose review skill (no destructive or batch operations, so no validation cap applies). Not 5 because the explicit pass/fail verification checkpoints are delegated to the reference file rather than appearing in the body.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clear overview with well-organized sections and a single, clearly signaled one-level-deep reference ("see references/rule.md") that exists and appropriately carries the full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance. No nested references, no buried or inlined content that belongs in a separate file.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("reviewing any process that spans multiple screens, steps, or modal stages") and 1-2 concrete actions ("Follow the real user journey and compare fields across steps"), but coverage is not comprehensive. It stays at 3 rather than 4 because the actions are variations of a single reviewing approach and never state the outcome (flagging repeated fields or requiring auto-population).

Completeness

Both parts are present: an explicit trigger clause ("Use when reviewing any process that spans multiple screens, steps, or modal stages") and a what/how statement ("Follow the real user journey and compare fields across steps instead of reviewing screens in isolation"). Not 5 because the "what" describes only the reviewing method — the goal of detecting redundant entry or repeated fields is implied rather than stated.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms are present ("process", "screens", "steps", "modal stages", "user journey", "fields"), but common variations a user would actually say are missing: "multi-step form", "flow", "checkout", "wizard", "signup/onboarding". Not 4 because more than a few natural trigger phrases for this domain are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Compare fields across steps instead of reviewing screens in isolation" is a fairly distinct trigger with minor overlap risk against closely related skills. Not 5 because the opening "reviewing any process" is broad enough to compete with general flow-review or form-UX skills; not 3 because the field-comparison trigger is specific to this niche.