Conciseness

Efficient overall: it names specific tools and vendor-specific exceptions without re-explaining what CSP or SRI are, and assumes competence throughout. Not 5 because the motivational opening ('Every third-party script... is a data-access grant to a vendor and a supply-chain dependency the site doesn't control') and the redundant closing of the Phase 2 exception note ('that's an accepted limitation, not a finding' after 'Note, don't flag') could be trimmed.

Actionability

Mostly executable guidance for an instruction-only skill: concrete tool calls ('Playwright MCP browser_network_requests', 'page.on(\'request\')'), concrete file locations ('_headers, meta CSP tag'), specific attributes ('integrity + crossorigin'), and a severity table with worked examples. Not 5 because there is no copy-paste-ready command and 'interacting normally' leaves the capture procedure underspecified; not 3 because the guidance is concrete and actionable, not pseudocode.

Workflow Clarity

Clear five-phase sequence (Inventory → Classify → SRI check → CSP drift check → Findings) with most checkpoints present, including the Phase 1 mismatch investigation ('check which') and Phase 3 reasoning about under- vs over-permissive drift. Not 5 because there is no explicit validation step on the final findings (e.g., re-verify each Critical/High against the captured request log); not 3 because the sequence and decision points are explicit, and the operation is observational rather than destructive/batch so no cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized single-file skill with clear section headers and no bundle files present, so nothing is misfiled or buried; cross-skill pointers ('responsive-visual-review', 'gdpr-test-patterns') are clearly signaled in context. Not 5 because at roughly 60 content lines it exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill exception, and the severity table or vendor-SRI-exception list could live in a reference file.

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — 'checking SRI coverage, CSP allowlist alignment, and vendor data leakage risks' on 'third-party scripts, resources (analytics, fonts, chat widgets)' — with minor gaps (e.g., the inventorying/reporting of loaded origins isn't stated). Not 5 because coverage isn't fully comprehensive; not 3 because it names the domain plus three specific check types, well beyond 1-2 actions.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: 'Use when auditing third-party scripts, resources (analytics, fonts, chat widgets), and their data access' (when, with concrete triggers) and 'checking SRI coverage, CSP allowlist alignment, and vendor data leakage risks' (what). Not 4 because the 'when' clause is fully explicit, not merely implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: 'auditing third-party scripts', 'analytics', 'fonts', 'chat widgets', 'SRI', 'CSP', 'vendor data leakage' are phrases a user requesting this audit would plausibly say. Not 5 because common synonyms like 'trackers', 'external scripts', or 'third-party requests' are missing; not 3 because coverage goes well beyond a few generic keywords.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (browser-loaded third-party resource auditing) with distinct technical triggers (SRI, CSP, vendor leakage), and explicit boundary statements — 'NOT a full penetration test or server-side dependency-vulnerability scan, NOT a standalone GDPR/consent-banner completeness check' — that actively prevent mis-triggering against adjacent skills. Minimal conflict risk.