Conciseness

Mostly efficient, command-dense content, but the destructive reset (rm -rf .build, rm Package.resolved, swift package resolve) appears three times (Pattern 4, the output template's 'Resolution Commands', and 'Common SPM Commands Reference'), and the ~130-line worked output template plus 'Invocation Examples' restate trigger guidance already in the description. Not 2 because most sections are concrete and unpadded; not 4 because the duplication and placeholder Swift boilerplate (products: [...]) are noticeable.

Actionability

Highly executable guidance: exact commands (swift package show-dependencies --format json, xcproject inspect --root ., a jq duplicate-pin pipeline with a no-jq fallback) and specific resolution edits per pattern. Minor gaps: Swift manifest snippets use [...] placeholders, and swift package diagnose-api-breaking-changes is offered as a generic 'check for issues/security advisories' tool, which slightly mischaracterizes it. Below anchor 5 for these gaps; well above 3.

Workflow Clarity

The Audit Process gives a clear Step 1→3 sequence (gather info, identify conflicts, analyze graph) and a Verification section closes the loop (clean build, swift test, grep warnings), so the destructive resets are followed by validation — the cap-3 rule for destructive operations without validation does not apply. Not 5 because the detect→fix→re-detect feedback loop is implicit and the 'nuclear option' cache wipe carries no pre-check caution.

Progressive Disclosure

A single ~480-line file with good section headers but no bundle: the full output-format template and the command reference are inline content that would fit better in separate reference files, and the only pointer is the external <plugin-root>/tools/xcproject. Matches anchor 3 (structure present, content that should be separate is inline); not 2 because sections are well-headed and navigable; not 4 because at this length the all-inline placement exceeds a minor gap.

Specificity

Names the domain concretely ("SPM resolution failures", "version conflicts between packages") but lists only trigger conditions, not actions — there is no statement of what the skill actually does. Anchor 3 requires 1–2 concrete actions, which are absent; it is above anchor 1 because the language is specific rather than pure abstraction.

Completeness

Only a "when" is present with no "what" — the description never says the skill diagnoses and resolves conflicts (e.g., by analyzing Package.swift and Package.resolved). This matches anchor 2 ("only 'when' is present without 'what'"); it is not 3 because the "what" is entirely missing, not merely weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural phrases users would say: "no such module" errors, "duplicate symbol linker errors", "version conflicts between packages", "Swift 6 package compatibility issues". Missing a few natural variations ("Swift Package Manager" spelled out, "Package.swift", "packages won't resolve/update"), keeping it below the comprehensive-synonym coverage of anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (Swift Package Manager dependency conflicts) with distinct triggers, so conflict risk with other skills is low. "no such module" errors can also arise from CocoaPods or Xcode build-setting problems unrelated to SPM, a minor overlap that keeps it below anchor 5.