Conciseness

The 8-line body is lean with zero padding: a numbered workflow plus one constraint line ("Do not mix examples from incompatible major versions or claim undocumented behavior as guaranteed"), assuming Claude's competence with no concept explanations. It matches the anchor 'Lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence; every token earns its place' rather than score 4, which would require trimmable over-explanation — none is present.

Actionability

The steps give behavioral direction ("Prefer API references, migration guides, and official examples", "keep retrieved context bounded") but omit the execution mechanics — no Context7 tool names, example queries, or concrete commands showing how to resolve a library or retrieve docs. This matches 'some concrete guidance but incomplete... missing key details'; it is above score 2 because the directives are specific instructions rather than high-level hints, but below score 4 because a reader cannot execute the workflow without guessing the actual tool invocations.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1-5 form a clear, ordered sequence (identify → resolve → query bounded → prefer version-matched sources → explain with provenance), which matches 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present'. It is not score 5 because there is no explicit validation checkpoint (e.g., verifying retrieved docs match the installed version before answering), only the implicit guard in step 5's "distinguish documentation from inference"; the skill is read-only, so the destructive-operation cap at 3 does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no need for external references, and the content is well-organized (numbered workflow followed by a clearly separated caution line), so per the rubric's simple-skill guidance progressive disclosure scores 5. No bundle files exist and no references are cited, so there are no buried or nested references to penalize.

Specificity

The description names two concrete actions — "Resolve the correct library" and "retrieve a small, relevant set of version-aware official documentation" — matching the anchor for 1-2 concrete actions without comprehensive coverage. It is not score 4 because it does not list several specific actions (e.g., no mention of querying, filtering, or citing docs), and not score 2 because the actions are specific rather than generic domain labels.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (resolve library, retrieve bounded version-aware documentation), but there is no explicit 'Use when...' trigger clause; "before answering a technical question" only weakly implies when. Per the judging guidelines, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 3, and it cannot score 4 since the 'when' is not explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords like "library", "official documentation", and "version-aware" are present, but common natural variations users would say — "docs", "API reference", "up-to-date documentation", "context7" — are missing. This matches the anchor 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms', not score 4 which requires only a few natural terms missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche — resolving library identity and retrieving version-matched official documentation — is mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against generic web-search or research skills. It is not score 5 because the description never names Context7 or a unique trigger that would eliminate overlap with other documentation-retrieval skills.