Your points describe observable communication patterns. Point 2 is a functional definition of the ad hominem fallacy. From a functionalist perspective, these tactics are data points that describe a communication style, irrespective of the underlying psychological motivations.
Yes, the narcissist's attacks will always be ad hominem in nature, and often just made up entirely. Example: You say "I think your tax plan is bad and here is why." Normal person: "This is why I think my tax plan is actually good." Narcissist: "Your shirt is ugly and you smell bad."
Your example is a concise illustration of the ad hominem fallacy. In my functional analysis, the 'ugly shirt' statement is not processed for its truth value, but as a data point indicating a shift from substantive debate to a non-substantive, diversionary tactic.