Conciseness

The 46-line body carries only tool-specific, non-obvious knowledge (wrapper-bundled native SDK semantics, 'sortable_sdk_version: normalized value for ordering', grouping selection rules) with zero generic-concept explanation. A couple of field glosses ('recent project usage counts and shares') nearly restate the field name, but these are single-clause disambiguations rather than padding, so it best fits 'every token earns its place' rather than the level-4 'minor instances of over-explanation'.

Actionability

Fully actionable instruction-only guidance: exact tool names ('Call list-sdk-feature-gates', 'Call list-sdk-versions'), concrete gate IDs for the ambiguous experiment cases, field-level computation ('compare observed versions with the feature gate's min_version, and sum subscribers_last_30days and pct_of_subscribers for rows below the requirement'), and concrete tooling direction (jq / code execution for large output). Per the rubric's scoring note, absence of code in an instruction-only skill is not penalized when the guidance is this specific; the only inferential hop (using sortable_sdk_version for comparison) is strongly implied by its definition.

Workflow Clarity

Both workflows are clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints: 'Call list-sdk-feature-gates before making any SDK compatibility claim' is a pre-claim validation, the unidentifiable-gate case has a feedback loop ('say so and explain which gates looked close instead of guessing. Consult the docs linked in the tool output to disambiguate'), and the adoption flow ends with an accuracy checkpoint ('State that these figures represent subscribers observed in the last 30 days, not the all-time install base'). The operations are read-only, so the destructive/batch cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external references, and is organized into two clear sections ('Check feature compatibility', 'Analyze SDK adoption') with no bundle files. This meets the rubric's explicit exception that short, single-purpose skills with well-organized sections can score 5 without external file references.

Specificity

The description lists four distinct concrete checks ('Check whether an SDK version supports a RevenueCat feature', 'whether an SDK upgrade is required', 'why an SDK-gated feature is not working', 'how much of a project's recent subscriber base is on incompatible SDK versions') with comprehensive coverage of the domain and consistent third-person voice. It matches the anchor for multiple specific concrete actions with no coverage gaps, so it sits above the 'minor gaps' level 4.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both 'what' (four concrete capabilities) and 'when' ('Use for questions about RevenueCat SDK compatibility, feature gates, minimum SDK versions, SDK adoption, upgrade impact, and rollout risk'). This clearly matches the anchor for explicit what and when with concrete trigger phrases, not the level-4 anchor where the 'when' could be more specific.

Trigger Term Quality

The 'when' clause covers natural terms users would say for this domain ('RevenueCat SDK compatibility, feature gates, minimum SDK versions, SDK adoption, upgrade impact, and rollout risk'), and the 'what' clause adds synonyms like 'SDK-gated feature', 'incompatible SDK versions', and 'subscriber base'. Coverage is comprehensive with synonyms; no common variation is missing, so it fits the top anchor rather than level 4.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is unambiguous — RevenueCat SDK compatibility — and both the capability list and trigger terms are scoped to RevenueCat, so it would not fire on generic SDK-version or feature-support questions. Clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk fits the top anchor.