Conciseness

Nearly all content is project-specific knowledge Claude cannot know (useChangeVersions, defineAction, ownableColumns, initialToolNames), so there is no generic-concept padding; every major section carries unique rules. Minor over-explanation remains — the real-time-sync pointer is repeated twice in section 1, and the provider-api/credential/wizard paragraphs are wordy — matching the 'efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed' anchor rather than 5's 'every token earns its place'.

Actionability

Guidance is fully concrete: named hooks and modules (useActionQuery, useChangeVersions from @agent-native/core/client/hooks), a copy-paste-ready TSX snippet, named actions and commands (pnpm action view-screen), exact helper signatures (defineAppRoles, registerShareableResource), and three worked examples covering common cases (mail, forms, analytics). Per the code-vs-instruction note, an instruction-only skill scores on concrete guidance, which is fully executable here; not below 5 because no pseudocode or vague direction appears.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is explicit — a scope-check gate first, then the four areas 'in order' (UI → Action → Skills/Instructions → App-state sync), then a six-question Verification checklist, which satisfies the validation requirement for a batch/destructive-adjacent workflow. Not 5 because the verification questions lack feedback-loop guidance (what to fix and re-check when an answer is 'no') — the 'minor validation gaps' of anchor 4; not 3 because validation checkpoints are explicit and present, not implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, and the body is well-sectioned with clearly signaled one-level-deep pointers to sibling skills (real-time-sync, sharing, performance, agent-native-docs, actions) that keep this file an overview. However, substantial detail that could live in reference files is inlined (real-time query paths, provider-api patterns, chat prompt dispatch readiness gates), matching anchor 4's 'most content appropriately placed; minor organization gaps' rather than 5's clean split.

Specificity

The description names its domain ("the four-area checklist every new feature must complete", "ensure the agent and UI stay in parity") but does not enumerate the concrete actions or areas involved. It matches the anchor of naming the domain with 1-2 concrete actions without comprehensive coverage — not 4 because no several specific actions are listed, not 2 because 'four-area checklist' and 'agent and UI stay in parity' are concrete rather than generic.

Completeness

It has both an explicit 'what' ("The four-area checklist every new feature must complete") and an explicit 'when' ("Use when adding any feature, integration, or capability"). Not 5 because the 'what' does not enumerate what the four areas are, keeping trigger phrase coverage less concrete than the anchor's fully-enumerated example; not 3 because the 'when' clause is present and explicit rather than weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

It includes natural phrases a developer would say — "adding any feature, integration, or capability" — plus the distinctive "parity" framing. Good keyword coverage with a few natural terms missing (e.g., 'new screen', 'new page', 'build'); not 5 because common variations users might say are absent, not 3 because the present terms go beyond 'some relevant keywords'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"ensure the agent and UI stay in parity" is a distinctive niche marker that separates it from generic build skills, and the trigger scope is appropriate for an umbrella checklist. Minor overlap risk remains with closely related skills (actions, build-an-app) whose triggers also fire on feature work — matching the 'mostly distinct; minor overlap' anchor rather than the fully-clear-niche of 5 or the moderate-overlap of 3.