Conciseness

The body is lean with zero padding: it never explains concepts Claude already knows (git, linting, build tools) and every line is either a decision rule or a command. The only explanatory content — the source/meta extension taxonomy — is repo-specific knowledge, matching the 'every token earns its place' anchor.

Actionability

Every path ends in copy-paste-ready commands (`git diff --name-only`, `yarn oxfmt`, `yarn workspace <package-name> lint:fix` / `build` / `test:dev:quiet`, or the monorepo equivalents), and the decision tree covers the common cases: no changes, meta-only, specific package, whole monorepo. This matches the 'fully executable, specific examples cover the common cases' anchor.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence and decision logic are clear (analyze changed files → determine what to run → run it), but the only checkpoint is 'Report any errors encountered during these steps', with no validation or fix-and-retry loop. Since `lint:fix` rewrites files and build/test run across the whole monorepo (batch operations), the rubric's cap applies: a batch skill without validation cannot score above 3, which also matches the 'checkpoints missing or implicit' anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, single-purpose, and organized into clearly numbered sections (Analyze changed files, Determine what to run, Run the full check), with no content that warrants separate reference files — none exist in the bundle. Per the rubric's simple-skill guideline, this earns a 5 on well-organized sections alone.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('check code') and lists three specific actions — 'linting, building, and testing' — which comprehensively cover the skill's pipeline, matching the 'several specific actions with minor gaps' anchor. It falls short of anchor 5, whose examples add concrete objects and detail (e.g. 'extract text and tables'), but exceeds anchor 3's 1-2 action coverage.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear — check code by 'linting, building, and testing' — but the description contains no 'when' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, capping completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. This exactly matches anchor 3: 'Has a clear what but when is missing or only weakly implied.'

Trigger Term Quality

'check', 'lint', 'build', 'test', and 'code' are natural phrases users would actually say when needing this skill, giving good keyword coverage. It is not anchor 5 because common variations like 'verify changes', 'run the checks', or 'CI' are missing, but it clearly exceeds the 'some relevant keywords' level of anchor 3.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'How to check code' is a broad phrase that overlaps with code-review, testing, and CI-style skills, but the enumerated verbs 'linting, building, and testing' make it somewhat specific to a build-verification workflow. It fits anchor 3 ('somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills') better than anchor 4, which requires a distinct niche with minimal overlap.