Conciseness

The body carries substantial genuinely non-obvious project knowledge (ADR pointers, wire frames, compaction rules), but it also explains concepts Claude already knows ("Yjs updates are commutative and idempotent", "Yjs is network-agnostic") and includes narrative design-history prose ("There are no independent row documents. A row's content node used to live in its own top-level document...") that could be trimmed. Mostly efficient with tightening possible, matching anchor 3; not 4 because several paragraphs are justification essays rather than lean instruction.

Actionability

Concrete API calls appear throughout ("Y.encodeStateVector(doc)", "Y.encodeStateAsUpdateV2(doc, remoteStateVector)", "doc.transact(() => { ... }, origin)", "mergeUpdatesV2") plus real file paths and a TypeScript example, so guidance is mostly executable. Not a 5 because only one code snippet exists and it is illustrative rather than copy-paste ready, and much guidance is prohibitive ('Do not add...') without a positive recipe; clearly above 3 because specifics dominate over vagueness.

Workflow Clarity

Conditional reading directives provide a decision structure ("Read [references/document-design.md] before choosing how a new row document is structured", "Read [references/debugging.md] when a document converges to unexpected state"), but the body is organized topically rather than as a sequenced workflow, and there are no validation checkpoints or feedback loops. Matches anchor 3 (structure present, checkpoints missing); not 2 because the trigger-based navigation is coherent and unambiguous.

Progressive Disclosure

Both referenced bundle files exist (references/document-design.md, references/debugging.md), are one level deep, and are clearly signaled with purpose and when-to-read conditions. Not a 5 because the ~190-line body inlines substantial detail (compaction mechanics, store connection rules) that could be split into further reference files; not 3 because the existing split and signaling are clean.

Specificity

"Apply Epicenter's Yjs 14 patterns for row documents, transactions, persistence, and synchronization" names a specific domain and four concrete capability areas. Not a 5 because the only verb is the generic "Apply" with no distinct concrete actions; not a 3 because coverage goes well beyond 1-2 actions.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both: what ("Apply Epicenter's Yjs 14 patterns for row documents, transactions, persistence, and synchronization") and when ("Use when working with `@y/y`, CRDTs, collaborative editing, awareness, or Yjs storage and providers") with concrete trigger phrases. Matches the anchor-5 example structure exactly; not a 4 because the 'when' clause is already explicit and specific.

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when working with `@y/y`, CRDTs, collaborative editing, awareness, or Yjs storage and providers" covers the natural terms a user would say, including the package name and CRDT/collaborative-editing synonyms. Not a 5 because common variations like "shared editing" or "real-time sync" are missing; clearly above 3 since coverage is broad and domain-appropriate.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Yjs/CRDT collaborative editing is a clear niche with distinct trigger terms ("Yjs", "CRDTs", "awareness", "@y/y"), so conflict risk with other skills is minimal. Not a 4 because the triggers would not plausibly fire a different skill.