Conciseness

The body is dense with non-obvious operational knowledge (exact commands, error strings like 'Expecting value: line 1 column 1 (char 0)' and 'Provider returned an empty stream', issue numbers, and the 409-without-quantization rule) and explains nothing Claude already knows. It loses a point to duplication rather than padding: the Quick Reference table repeats values already stated in How to Run (relay URL, ACTUAL_API_KEY, ACTUAL_BASE_URL, provider id), and the Verification section repeats the same 'hermes chat -Q -q ...' commands verbatim from the step lists. This is 'efficient; minor instances... that could be trimmed' (anchor 4), not anchor 5's 'every token earns its place'.

Actionability

Every step is a copy-paste-ready command: curl for model discovery, 'hermes config set model.provider actual', 'actual models download "Qwen/Qwen2.5-0.5B-Instruct-GGUF/Q4_K_M"' with the exact repo/quant string, and verification probes with deterministic expected outputs ('Reply with exactly: ACTUAL_OK' / 'LOCAL_OK'). The few placeholders (MODEL_ID_FROM_DISCOVERY, INSTALLED_MODEL_NAME) are not gaps — the preceding discovery steps tell you exactly where to get their values, and the skill distinguishes download ids from installed names explicitly. This matches anchor 5: 'Fully executable... specific examples cover the common cases'.

Workflow Clarity

Both flows (relay and local) are clearly numbered with explicit validation checkpoints at each phase — verify the key via /v1/models, verify end-to-end with a deterministic probe, verify with a reduced toolset in local mode. Error-recovery feedback loops are present throughout: expired device codes ('re-run actual for a fresh one'), 400s on reasoning effort (clamp or 'agent.reasoning_overrides.<model>: high'), empty-stream symptom with three concrete fixes, and 409 downloads ('explicit quantization'). This is anchor 5: 'Clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery'.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a well-sectioned overview (When to Use, Prerequisites, How to Run, Quick Reference, Pitfalls, Verification) that keeps core workflow inline while offloading the peripheral OpenCode-client integration to a single clearly signaled one-level-deep reference ('For other OpenAI-compatible clients (e.g. OpenCode), see references/opencode.md' — the file exists in the bundle). There is no nesting of references and no monolithic inline dump of material that belongs elsewhere. This fits anchor 5: 'Clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references... easy navigation'.

Specificity

The description names the domain — "Set up Actual Computer (actual.inc) inference in Hermes" — but the only action is the generic verb "Set up", with no concrete sub-actions (relay vs local modes, key/env-var configuration, model download). This matches anchor 2 ('Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic', e.g. 'Processes PDF files') rather than anchor 3, which requires 1-2 concrete actions like 'extracts content'.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (set up Actual Computer inference as a Hermes provider), but there is no 'when' guidance at all — no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger phrasing. Per the judging guidelines, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 3, and anchor 3 ('Has a clear what but when is missing') is the exact fit; anchor 4 requires explicit when-guidance which is absent.

Trigger Term Quality

It contains relevant specific keywords ("Actual Computer", "actual.inc", "inference", "Hermes", "Set up") but misses common natural variations users would say — local inference, self-hosted, OpenAI-compatible, relay, gguf, model setup. This is 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms' (anchor 3), above anchor 2 because the terms present are genuinely specific rather than generic filler.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Naming two specific products — "Actual Computer (actual.inc)" and "Hermes" — carves out a very narrow niche that virtually no other skill would occupy, so conflict risk is minimal ('Clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk'). It cannot score higher than 5, and unlike anchor 4's 'minor overlap risk with closely related skills', there are no closely related skills that would plausibly collide on these triggers.