The body is lean: a one-line overview, a short trigger list, a flat file index, four terse execution rules, and a single pointer. It assumes Claude's competence and does not pad with concepts Claude already knows, matching "lean and efficient; every token earns its place." It avoids the verbosity of the score-1 anchor.

It points concretely to named reference files ("Read the relevant command template from this skill's references/") but the execution rules themselves are abstract ("Apply the template structure and required fields as the output contract") with no per-task detail in-body, matching "some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details." It is not a 1 because it does name specific files, and not a 3 because no in-body example or field specification is given.

The four-step execution sequence is present (read template → apply structure → keep minimal → prefer clarity) but it is high-level and does not map each "When to use" trigger to a specific reference file, leaving template selection implicit. This matches "steps listed but checkpoints missing or implicit" rather than the fully sequenced, validated anchor at 3.

The body is an overview/router pointing to one-level-deep reference files (the "Source of truth" list and "Command mapping" pointer to command-catalog.md), all of which exist in ./references/. Content is appropriately split and navigation is clear, matching "clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references."

The phrase "Documentation and extension workflows derived from local slash commands (docs, explanation, issues, prototypes, tutorials, MCP design review)" names the domain and several work areas, but lists categories rather than concrete actions (no verbs like "draft", "standardize", "review"), matching the anchor that names a domain and some actions but is not comprehensive. It is not a 1 because it is far more specific than "Helps with documents", and not a 3 because it does not enumerate multiple specific concrete actions.

It states what the skill does ("Documentation and extension workflows derived from local slash commands") but contains no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance; the "when" is only implied by the parenthetical categories. Per the judging guidelines, a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness at 2.

The parenthetical "docs, explanation, issues, prototypes, tutorials, MCP design review" supplies several relevant natural keywords, but it omits common variations a user might say (e.g. "documentation", "article/video tutorial", "skill/command templates") that the body later claims as capabilities. This matches "some relevant keywords but missing common variations" rather than full coverage (3).

"Documentation and extension workflows" with an "MCP design review" component gives it a somewhat specific niche, but the broad documentation framing could overlap with other doc-oriented skills, matching "somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills." It is not generic enough for 1, but lacks the sharply distinct single-domain triggers needed for 3.