Conciseness

Nearly every sentence carries project-specific directives Claude could not infer (option labels, value mappings, file write rules), so it is not explaining known concepts — but lengthy rationale blockquotes (the modes.review_mode resolution note, the two "Why this is asked here" paragraphs, the tier-neutrality notes) and the "Name the immediate next step only" instruction repeated verbatim across four paths inflate the token budget. Fits 'Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened', not 2 (padding is rationale, not fluff) nor 4 (several multi-paragraph design-rationale blocks could be condensed or moved out of line).

Actionability

Fully executable for an instruction-only skill: exact AskUserQuestion prompts and option labels, explicit option-to-value mappings, a copy-paste v1.1 project.yaml template, a stage mapping table, and prescribed reply lines for every phase. Matches 'Fully executable; copy-paste ready… specific examples cover the common cases'; edge cases are enumerated with concrete responses.

Workflow Clarity

Phases 1–5 are clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints: silent pre-detection before asking, an ask-before-write approval in Phase 3c that explicitly covers the 3d/3e writes, decline handling carried forward, skip-if-already-set checks for rigor and automation, a mismatch trigger, an empty-project/D-but-empty edge case, and a terminal verdict. Matches 'Clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops…; checklists for complex processes'.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent), and the body is a ~410-line monolith whose design-rationale blockquotes and repeat-routing rules could live in a reference file. External .claude/docs references are well signaled (one level deep, with per-section token-cost warnings), which lifts it above 2, but inline rationale that clearly belongs in a separate file caps it at 'Some structure but could be better organized', short of 4.

Specificity

Names the domain (onboarding) and two concrete actions — "asks where you are, then guides you to the right workflow" — but stops there; it never names which workflows it routes to or what it actually does (questionnaire, config writes, path presentation). This matches the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive', not 4, which requires several specific actions.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (asks where the user is, then guides them to the right workflow) and the 'when' is stated up front via "First-time onboarding" rather than merely implied, but it lacks an explicit "Use when…" trigger clause, so it fits 'Has both what and when; when could be more explicit or specific'. Not 5: no concrete trigger phrase like 'Use when a new user starts their first session'.

Trigger Term Quality

"First-time onboarding" is a natural phrase a new user might echo, but it is essentially the only trigger keyword; common variations like "getting started", "new project", "set up my project", or "where do I begin" are absent. Matches 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms', short of 4's 'Good keyword coverage'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"First-time onboarding" carves a distinct niche versus sibling skills like /brainstorm or /setup-engine, and the routing framing differentiates it from generic /help. Minor overlap risk remains with other orientation/entry-point skills, matching 'Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills' rather than a fully conflict-free 5.