Conciseness

The body is mostly lean and assumes competence (flag definitions, a threshold, a severity table), but a few tokens could be trimmed — e.g. the sentence reciting that "German and Finnish compound nouns, and French's typical verbosity relative to English, are the most common sources" is linguistic knowledge Claude already has, though it ends with a genuine directive ("check what the source language actually is"). Not 5 because of that minor over-explanation; not 3 because padding is minimal.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance for an instruction-only skill: specific placeholder syntaxes ("{name}/%s/{{count}}-style"), a numeric rule of thumb (">30% longer character count"), named UI-constrained contexts ("button labels, nav items, form labels, badges"), and a severity table with concrete examples per level. Not 5 because there is no example of what a well-formed finding/report entry should look like, leaving a minor gap in the final deliverable's format.

Workflow Clarity

Clear Phase 0→3 sequence with real gating checkpoints: "Confirm key-parity is already green" before starting, "read it [style guide] before judging tone", and the Phase 2 handoff to visual confirmation for flagged strings. Not 5 because there is no explicit validate→fix→retry feedback loop within the workflow itself (the handoff is one-directional); not 3 because the checkpoints that do exist are explicit and well-placed.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, and the ~87-line body is well-organized into clear section headers ("When not to use this", Phase 0–3) with content appropriately inline at this size; pointers to other skills (i18n-check.py, responsive-visual-review) are clearly signaled navigation. Not 5 because it exceeds the rubric's under-50-line simple-skill exception, and the severity table/examples could plausibly live in a reference file if the skill grows; not 3 because nothing is buried or misfiled.

Specificity

Lists several concrete named checks — "literal phrasing, broken placeholders, untranslated leftovers, and terminology drift" plus "correctness, naturalness, consistency" — but omits the length/layout-risk analysis that the body dedicates an entire phase to, leaving a minor coverage gap. Anchor 4 (several specific actions, minor gaps) fits better than 5 because coverage is not comprehensive.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ("checking for literal phrasing, broken placeholders, untranslated leftovers, and terminology drift") and when ("Use when reviewing actual translation quality... for multi-language sites"), with concrete trigger phrases. Not 4 because the 'when' clause is explicit and specific, not merely present.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage — "translation quality", "naturalness", "literal phrasing", "untranslated", "terminology drift", "multi-language sites" — that a user would plausibly say. Common synonyms like "localization", "l10n", or "i18n" are absent, which keeps it below anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage but clearly above anchor 3's missing-variations level.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche with distinct triggers, and it actively negates the two nearest adjacent skills ("NOT a substitute for professional translator sign-off... NOT a key-parity check"), which minimizes wrong-skill triggering. Not 4 because the explicit negative boundaries leave virtually no overlap ambiguity.