The body is lean with no explanatory padding of concepts Claude already knows; each section (Usage, Workflow, Rules, Score) earns its tokens, matching the score-3 anchor for lean, efficient content that assumes Claude's competence.

It provides a copy-paste-ready executable command ('npx -y react-doctor@latest . --verbose') and concrete diagnostic categories, matching the score-3 anchor for fully executable commands; it is not score 2 because the guidance is real and complete rather than pseudocode or missing key details.

The four-step workflow is clearly sequenced and ends with an explicit validation/feedback checkpoint ('Re-run to verify the score improved'), matching the score-3 anchor; it is not score 2 because the validation step is explicit rather than missing or implicit.

This is a sub-50-line single-purpose skill with no need for external references and well-organized sections, which the rubric's scoring notes allow to score 3 on progressive disclosure; no bundle files exist to contradict this.

It names the domain ('React codebase') and two verbs ('Diagnose and fix') but the object 'health issues' is broad rather than a list of multiple concrete actions, matching the score-2 anchor; it falls short of score 3 which requires several specific concrete actions like the PDF example.

It explicitly answers both 'what' ('Diagnose and fix React codebase health issues') and 'when' via an explicit 'Use when reviewing React code...' trigger clause, satisfying the score-3 anchor; it is not score 2 because the trigger is explicit rather than implied.

Phrases such as 'reviewing React code', 'fixing performance problems', 'auditing security', and 'improving code quality' are natural terms users would actually say, giving good coverage rather than just some relevant keywords.

The React-specific niche and distinct triggers ('React code', 'auditing security') make it unlikely to fire for the wrong skill, matching the score-3 anchor for a clear niche.