Conciseness

The body is extremely lean: terse `:=` definition blocks, tables for the reuse-table columns and anti-patterns, and zero padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Every token earns its place, matching anchor 5 rather than 4 (there is no over-explanation left to trim).

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: exact table columns, "Grep the app's UI paths for the pattern", "ls/Grep, never by reading component source", explicit extend/new decision rules, and a specific pointer for repo-specific values. Not 5 because a few steps (e.g., "the `Component review` token serves them", the vocabulary file's format) are delegated to external files rather than specified.

Workflow Clarity

Sections 1-5 form a clear numbered sequence (name surfaces → two tests → extend/new → explore → reuse table) with an explicit gating checkpoint ("A `new` row with no Story is an open question; the spec cannot be approved with it") and a human-chooses-before-merge loop. Not 5 because there is no explicit error-recovery feedback loop and the sequence is implied by section numbering rather than stated as steps.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist or are referenced; the ~85-line body is well organized into seven numbered sections and deliberately keeps repo-specific values one level deep in project context. Good structure and easy navigation, but it sits above the under-50-line simple-skill threshold for a reference-free 5, so anchor 4 fits best.

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — "naming surfaces with the repo's pattern vocabulary", "deciding reuse versus extend versus new", "exploring compositions", "writing the reuse table (component-plan.md, a spec's `## Reuse`, a UI audit)" — with named artifacts. Not 5 because "exploring compositions" is abstract and the trailing meta sentence adds no capability; not 3 since coverage goes well beyond 1-2 actions.

Completeness

Opens with an explicit "Use when..." clause carrying concrete trigger phrases, and states clearly what it does (naming surfaces, deciding reuse/extend/new, exploring compositions, writing the reuse table). Both what and when are explicit and specific, matching anchor 5 rather than 4 where the 'when' would be weaker.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-term coverage: "designing, planning or auditing UI", "component library", "UI audit", plus concrete file triggers (component-plan.md, a spec's `## Reuse`). A few natural variations a user might say ("screen", "board", "spec review") are absent, keeping it below the comprehensive anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche (design method against a component library) with distinct triggers, and explicitly fences off overlap by delegating repo-specific vocabulary, bundle and board rules to project-context and the designer override. Minimal conflict risk with other skills.