Conciseness

Lean and efficient: no concept explanations Claude already knows, no padding — just prerequisites, a file location, two focused code blocks, and a registration pointer. Every token (the TypeScript interface, the JSONSchema, the component skeleton) carries information Claude cannot infer on its own. Nothing to trim, so it is not a 4.

Actionability

Concrete file path ("opencti-platform/opencti-graphql/src/modules/playbook/components/<name>-component.ts") and copy-paste-ready TypeScript for the config schema and component definition. Not a 5 because the executor body is a skeleton ("// Business logic here"), the registration step gives no import/register code snippet, and no example of consuming the config is shown — minor gaps, not the pseudocode-level gaps of a 3.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1–4 are clearly sequenced (create file → define schema → implement interface → register), but there are no validation checkpoints: no typecheck/build command, no test run, no way to confirm the component registered correctly. Anchor 3 ("steps listed but validation gaps; checkpoints missing") is the best fit — better than 4 because zero checkpoints are present, better than 2 because the sequence is complete and specific rather than rough.

Progressive Disclosure

A ~55-line skill with well-organized sections (Prerequisites, Procedure with four numbered steps) and no bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ do not exist). It is appropriately self-contained — nothing needs splitting off, and there is no nesting or buried referencing. Not a 4 because there are no organization gaps to point to.

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — "adding a new playbook automation component, implementing a PlaybookComponent interface, or registering a new playbook step" — with named technical artifacts. Not a 5 because the three actions are facets of a single task (creating one component), so coverage is narrow; not a 3 because more than 1–2 specific actions are explicitly named.

Completeness

The "when" is explicit ("Use when: adding a new playbook automation component...") but the "what" is only implied through those trigger phrases — there is no standalone statement of what the skill does (e.g., "Scaffolds and registers a new playbook component"). It is above anchor 2 (only 'when' present, no 'what') because the when-clauses double as a discernible what, but below anchor 4 which requires both clearly present.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keywords a user on this platform would say: "playbook", "playbook step", "automation component", "PlaybookComponent". Not a 5 because common variations like "playbook node", "new playbook automation", or creating/testing playbook flows are missing; not a 3 because the terms present are the natural phrases for this domain rather than generic language.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Playbook automation component" and "PlaybookComponent interface" name a clear niche (OpenCTI playbook development) with distinct triggers and minimal overlap with other skills. It is not a 4 because no closely related generic skill would plausibly claim these exact triggers.