Conciseness

The bulk is genuinely useful domain knowledge (framework mechanics, copy patterns, examples), but there is real padding: the "About the Author" biography, affiliate-tagged "Further Reading" links, "Why it works" sections that restate the preceding "Core concept" (e.g., the Trojan Horse idea stated twice under Stories), and the six core questions repeated across the ASCII diagram, summary table, and detail sections. Not a 2 because most content adds framework-specific value Claude would not reliably reproduce, but it could be tightened considerably.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is highly concrete: copy-paste-able copy patterns per principle, application tables with named real-world examples (Spotify Wrapped, Kit Kat + coffee, Blendtec), a Common Mistakes table with fixes, and a Quick Diagnostic with per-question actions. Not a 5 because the "Scoring" protocol says "rate 0-10" without defining point weighting per principle, and there is no worked end-to-end example of applying the diagnostic to one product.

Workflow Clarity

Strong workflow components exist — the Quick Diagnostic with "If No... → Action" checkpoints and the scoring feedback loop ("Always provide the current score and specific improvements needed to reach 10/10") — but they are never assembled into an explicitly sequenced procedure (diagnose → score → improve); the order of operations is left implicit and the Scoring section appears before the framework it scores. No destructive or batch operations, so the validation cap does not apply; the pieces fit anchor 3's 'sequence present but checkpoints implicit' better than anchor 4's 'clear sequence'.

Progressive Disclosure

Excellent bundle structure: all 9 referenced files exist and are substantive; each STEPPS section ends with a clearly signaled one-level-deep pointer ("See: references/triggers.md for habitat analysis and trigger design frameworks"), and a Reference Files index lists every file with a one-line description. Navigation is easy, references are exactly one level deep, and the split between overview knowledge and detail files is appropriate — matching the anchor-5 pattern.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — "Engineer word-of-mouth and virality using the STEPPS framework", "designing shareable features", "crafting social media campaigns", "building products that spread through peer recommendation" — with named framework components. Not a 5 because the actions are more abstract than the anchor's tangible file operations and omit capabilities the body covers (e.g., auditing/scoring existing content); not a 3 because well more than 1-2 concrete actions are named.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: what ("Engineer word-of-mouth and virality using the STEPPS framework (Social Currency, Triggers, Emotion, Public, Practical Value, Stories)") and when ("Use when the user mentions 'go viral'...") with concrete trigger phrases. Matches the anchor-5 example's structure exactly; the 'when' clause is present and specific, so the completeness cap does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

Eight natural trigger phrases users would actually say ("go viral", "word of mouth", "shareable content", "social currency", "why people share", "viral loop", "referral program", "organic growth") plus scenario triggers give comprehensive coverage including synonyms and phrasings. Exceeds the anchor-4 example, which still has natural terms missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The STEPPS/virality niche is clear and it even disambiguates sibling skills ("For sticky messaging, see made-to-stick. For persuasion tactics, see influence-psychology."), but broad phrases like "social media campaigns" and "organic growth" create minor overlap risk with general marketing/content skills. Mostly distinct rather than minimal conflict risk, so not a 5.