Conciseness

The design-review core ('Rate 0-10', the AI slop blacklist, pass structure) is dense, but roughly 380 of ~1115 lines are shared framework material (Voice/persona rules, telemetry and proactive prompts, Contributor Mode, Plan Status Footer) that does not serve the design-review task. It fits anchor 3 rather than 2 because it never explains concepts Claude already knows — the padding is structural, not conceptual.

Actionability

Nearly everything is executable: exact commands ('$D variants --brief "..." --count 3 --output-dir', the feedback polling loop), the feedback JSON shape, the interaction state table template, and explicit substitution rules for placeholders like SKILL_NAME/OUTCOME. Copy-paste ready commands with specific examples covering the common cases match anchor 5.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is explicit (Pre-review audit → Step 0 scope with STOP → Step 0.5 mockups → 7 passes each with STOP/AskUserQuestion → required outputs → review log → dashboard) and validation checkpoints exist ('$D check' quality gate, feedback confirmation loop, fallbacks on failure). Not 5 because two different sections are both titled 'Step 0' ('Detect platform and base branch' vs 'Design Scope Assessment') and the priority hierarchy references 'Step 0' ambiguously, leaving minor sequence gaps.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist; everything — Voice, Design Hard Rules, the 10-item AI Slop blacklist, dashboard formats — is inlined in a single 1100-line body. Section structure and in-file navigation are good and external framework pointers exist ('$GSTACK_ROOT/ETHOS.md'), but large content that should be in separate reference files is inline, fitting anchor 3 rather than 2 ('minimal structure') because the internal structure is solid.

Specificity

'Rates each design dimension 0-10, explains what would make it a 10, then fixes the plan to get there' names three concrete actions (rate, explain the gap, fix the plan). It stops short of anchor 5 because the design dimensions themselves are never named, leaving what is actually reviewed implicit.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what ('Rates each design dimension 0-10... then fixes the plan to get there') and when ('Use when asked to "review the design plan" or "design critique"') with concrete trigger phrases, plus proactive-use guidance — the anchor 5 pattern.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural user phrases — 'review the design plan', 'design critique' — plus the contextual cue 'plan with UI/UX components'. Good coverage, but a few natural synonyms are missing (e.g., 'design feedback', 'UI review of the plan'), so it matches 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' rather than comprehensive.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves out a clear niche ('Works in plan mode', plan-stage review) and explicitly disambiguates the sibling skill ('For live site visual audits, use /design-review'). Minor overlap remains because 'design critique' could also apply to live-site critique, fitting 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills' rather than minimal conflict risk.