Conciseness

The body defers shared guidance to "intent load @tanstack/table-core#table-state for shared ownership, initialization, updates, and resets" instead of duplicating it, and every sentence carries Preact-specific facts ("table.atoms.<slice>.get() and table.store.state are current snapshots, not Preact subscriptions") with no concept padding. Lean and efficient matches anchor 5; nothing reads as over-explanation that would drop it to anchor 4.

Actionability

The pagination example is fully executable copy-paste code (imports, tableFeatures, useState, useTable with state/onPaginationChange, rendered button), backed by concrete commands ("intent load @tanstack/table-core#table-state", inspect "node_modules/@tanstack/preact-table/dist/useTable.d.ts"). This covers the common case per anchor 5; secondary cases are deferred to a real reference file rather than left vague, so anchor 4's "minor gaps" does not fit better.

Workflow Clarity

There is a clear progression (load shared intent first, read reactive state, control a slice, then narrow boundaries) with conditional checkpoints ("If this task changes processing features, run intent load @tanstack/table-core#table-features"). This is a non-destructive framework skill so the missing-validation cap does not apply, but there are no explicit validation or error-recovery steps, which keeps it at anchor 4 rather than anchor 5.

Progressive Disclosure

The single reference (references/reactivity.md, which exists) is clearly signaled with its purpose ("For external-atom examples, selector dependencies, or fine-grained boundaries, read reactivity details") and is one level deep with no nested references. The body keeps overview-level content and splits detail appropriately, matching anchor 5.

Specificity

"Read and control Table v9 state in preact" plus "tracked reads, subscriptions, controlled slices, and framework-specific reactive boundaries" lists several specific capabilities, but "framework-specific reactive boundaries" is somewhat abstract and concrete operations like initialization, resets, and atom ownership are not named. Minor gaps in coverage fit anchor 4 rather than the comprehensive coverage of anchor 5, and clearly exceed the 1-2 concrete actions of anchor 3.

Completeness

It explicitly answers what ("Read and control Table v9 state in preact") and when ("Use for tracked reads, subscriptions, controlled slices, and framework-specific reactive boundaries") with concrete trigger phrases. This matches anchor 5; the "Use for" clause is fully explicit, so it exceeds anchor 4's "when could be more specific".

Trigger Term Quality

"Table v9 state", "preact", "subscriptions", and "controlled slices" are terms users of this library would naturally say, but "TanStack" and common variations like "onPaginationChange" or "useTable" are missing. Good keyword coverage with a few natural terms missing matches anchor 4, short of the comprehensive synonym coverage of anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Table v9 state in preact" carves out a clear niche that is unlikely to fire for generic state-management, React-table, or other framework skills. Minimal conflict risk matches anchor 5, and it is clearly more distinct than anchor 4's minor-overlap case.