Conciseness

The body is ~26 lines with zero padding: every line carries non-obvious information (e.g., 'needs convex 1.45+ on a Convex Cloud deployment, paid plan', 'The gateway does not serve embeddings yet'). It assumes Claude's competence — no explanation of what an agent or vector search is — matching anchor 5 ('Lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence; every token earns its place').

Actionability

Concrete specifics exist — package names (@convex-dev/agent, @convex-dev/ai-sdk-provider), the file to edit (convex.config.ts), the call shape `languageModel: convexGateway("provider/model")` — but key execution details are missing: no example of defining an agent or creating/streaming a thread, no vector-index setup for step 4, and the `env` micro power is named without any pointer to how it works. This matches anchor 3 ('Some concrete guidance but incomplete; ... missing key details') rather than anchor 4, which expects mostly executable guidance with only minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

The 5-step Workflow is clearly sequenced and even includes a conditional branch ('Only if the gateway is unavailable (free plan, self-hosted, local backend)'), but no validation or verification checkpoints appear anywhere — nothing like confirming the component registered, checking the deployment, or testing the agent after setup. That matches anchor 3 ('Steps listed but validation gaps; sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit'); it is above anchor 2 because the sequence is well defined, and below anchor 4 because 'most checkpoints present' is not met with zero checkpoints.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no external bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent) and the body references no files that don't exist, so there are no dangling references. Content is well organized into two clearly-labeled sections (## Workflow, ## Rules), which per the rubric's guideline for short skills without external-reference needs earns anchor 5.

Specificity

Quotes: "Add an AI agent / RAG backend (@convex-dev/agent) to the Convex app" — it names the domain and one concrete action (adding the agent backend) with the exact package, but does not list several actions like the score-4 anchor ('Extracts text from PDF files, fills forms, converts pages to images'). It is more concrete than the score-2 anchor ('Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic') since it names the specific package and target app, so 3 is the best fit.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear ('Add an AI agent / RAG backend (@convex-dev/agent) to the Convex app'), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance anywhere in the description, so per the judging guidelines completeness is capped at 3 ('Has a clear what but when is missing or only weakly implied'). It is not a 4 because the 'when' is entirely absent rather than just imprecise.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant terms present: "AI agent", "RAG", "backend", "Convex", "@convex-dev/agent" — the core phrases a user would say. However, common variations and synonyms are missing (e.g., "chatbot", "LLM", "vector search", "embeddings", "message history"), matching anchor 3 ('Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms') rather than anchor 4's 'good keyword coverage'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear and tightly scoped: "(@convex-dev/agent) to the Convex app" — unlikely to trigger for non-Convex skills. It is not a 5 because the description lacks explicit trigger phrases (the score-5 anchor's example includes 'Use when working with...' phrasing), leaving minor overlap risk with generic AI-agent/backend skills.