Conciseness

The body is dense with non-obvious, high-value specifics (e.g. the Xcode 27 @State deferred-initial-value behavior, '@Bindable on a struct does not compile', the withAnimation/await compile-error note) and avoids explaining basics. Not 5 because of clear redundancy: Scope is stated twice (opening paragraph and trailing section), the Related section repeats the cross-auditor notes from Phase 4, and four invocation examples say the same thing.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable for an instruction-only skill: literal grep patterns per category, an explicit read-to-verify requirement for every match, concrete fix targets with alternatives ('@Binding var item', '@Bindable var model'), a false-positive exclusion list, and a complete output template. Every detection category names its search, issue, and specific fix.

Workflow Clarity

Five phases are explicitly sequenced with checkpoints: 'use Read to verify the surrounding context before reporting' forms a grep→verify feedback loop, 'Present this map in the output before proceeding' gates Phase 2 on Phase 1 output, and Phase 3 requires evidence from the map ('don't speculate without reading the code'). Output limits handle the high-volume case.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned with clear headers, but it is a ~240-line monolith with no bundle files — the anti-pattern catalog detail, the Phase 3/4 cross-reference tables, the health-score template, and the invocation examples are all inlined content that could live in one-level-deep reference files. This matches 'some structure but... content that should be separate is inline'; not 4 because no references exist at all to offload the bulk.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("SwiftUI architecture review, separation of concerns, testability issues") but lists no concrete actions — it says when to trigger, never what the skill actually does. This matches the anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'; it is below 3 because no 1-2 concrete actions are stated at all.

Completeness

The description is entirely a 'Use when...' trigger clause — 'only when is present without what' — with no statement of what the skill does (detects anti-patterns, produces an architecture health score, etc.). It is not 1 because the 'when' itself is concrete and multi-trigger, and not 3 because a clear 'what' is entirely absent rather than weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases users would say are present ("SwiftUI architecture review", "separation of concerns", "testability issues", the quoted "logic in view"), giving good keyword coverage. Not 5 because common variations users actually use are missing — e.g. "MVVM", "view models", "state management", "@State".

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The SwiftUI-architecture niche is clear and the quoted "logic in view" phrase is a distinctive trigger, so conflict risk is low. Not 5 because generic phrases like "architecture review" and "testability issues" overlap with general code-review and refactoring skills, and the description does not state the boundary against performance or navigation audits.