Conciseness

The body is dense operational detail that assumes Claude's competence — e.g. "Bikeshed does NOT support this — it renders the |var:type| text literally", the data-lt semantics difference, and the ReSpec id-pattern table — with no filler explaining what ReSpec or Bikeshed are. Not 5 because the |var:type| issue and example-id guidance are each explained twice (step 3 prose and the step 6 issue table / examples section), and a few table rows restate earlier bullet points.

Actionability

Guidance is largely copy-paste ready: the exact spec-generator curl URL, `bikeshed -f spec`, complete `.pr-preview.json` and workflow YAML blocks, and BAD/GOOD HTML snippets. Not 5 because the critical verification step depends on `python3 <skill-dir>/check-anchors.py`, a script referenced as being in the skill's directory but absent from the bundle, so the shipped skill cannot actually run its own verification flow.

Workflow Clarity

Seven clearly sequenced steps with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: baseline sanity check (`grep -c '<dfn'` "must be more than 0"), iterative fix-until-clean ("fix ALL errors, warnings, and info messages... until the build produces ZERO output"), and verify-and-retry ("must end with OK. For every id or exported term it reports missing, fix index.bs... then rerun"), plus visual comparison and artifact cleanup. This matches the anchor-5 example's validate→fix→retry structure despite involving destructive steps (deleting index.html).

Progressive Disclosure

Section structure is clear (numbered steps, labeled subsections), but the bundle contains no reference files at all while the body twice references `check-anchors.py` "in this skill's directory" — a broken reference — and ~100 lines of lookup material (the issue/fix table, id-pattern tables, and element-conversion rules) are inlined in SKILL.md where a reference file would keep the working overview lean. Above anchor 2 because structure and signaling are present; below anchor 4 because the one reference used is not actually shipped.

Specificity

"Convert a W3C spec from ReSpec (index.html) to Bikeshed (index.bs), keeping its anchors and exported terms stable" names concrete file formats, the transformation, and the invariant to preserve. Not 5 because it describes a single action plus constraint rather than a list of specific capabilities (no mention of CI updates, building, or verification); clearly above the '1-2 concrete actions' of 3.

Completeness

The 'what' is explicit and precise (convert ReSpec index.html to Bikeshed index.bs while keeping anchors and exported terms stable), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms a user would say are present: "W3C spec", "ReSpec", "Bikeshed", "index.html", "index.bs", "anchors", "exported terms" — in this niche the jargon IS the natural vocabulary. Not 5 because synonyms like "migrate"/"migration" or "spec conversion" are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Convert a W3C spec from ReSpec (index.html) to Bikeshed (index.bs)" occupies a clear, narrow niche with distinct trigger terms; no realistic overlap with other skills. Not lower: it is far more specific than the 'mostly distinct' anchor 4 example.