Conciseness

The body is dense and operational — exact bash/node commands, tables, and JSON snippets with almost no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Minor trimmable padding exists (the 'Multi-Line Agent Display' prose explaining tree characters, the 'Color Coding' section, and the trailing '~300ms' footnote), matching 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed'. Not score 5 because those few sections add tokens without adding actionable value.

Actionability

Fully executable, copy-paste-ready commands throughout (Step 1–6 node one-liners, the cp install commands, exact statusLine JSON for both Unix and Windows), plus concrete presets and troubleshooting recovery commands — matching 'fully executable; copy-paste ready code or commands; specific examples cover the common cases'. Not score 4 because no key execution details are missing.

Workflow Clarity

The setup workflow is a clearly sequenced 7-step process with explicit pre-checks (EXISTS/MISSING detection, plugin READY/NOT_FOUND verification), conditional branching ('If omc-hud.mjs is MISSING or argument is setup'), and a troubleshooting feedback loop (re-run setup, omc-doctor, re-run installer for the Node 24+ error). It falls short of anchor 5 only because there is no explicit post-edit validation that settings.json was modified correctly (the 'Manual verification' section states expectations but no verify-then-fix loop), matching 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps'.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-organized into clear sections (Quick Commands, Auto-Setup, Presets, Display Elements, Configuration, Troubleshooting) with no bundle files to reference; the referenced template paths point to the plugin's own scripts, which are appropriately cited as the single source of truth. It does not reach anchor 5 because at ~250 lines some inline reference material (the full omcHud config JSON, the display-elements table) could be split into a separate reference file, matching 'good structure; most content is appropriately placed; minor organization gaps'.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("HUD display options") and concrete objects ("layout, presets, display elements") but relies on a single generic action verb ("Configure"), matching 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'. It is not score 2 because the parenthetical items add specificity beyond bare domain naming, and not score 4 because no list of several specific actions (e.g., install, switch presets, troubleshoot) is given.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear ("Configure HUD display options") but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not score 2 because the 'what' half is concrete and unambiguous, unlike a vague-what example.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords like "HUD", "display", "layout", and "presets" are present, but common natural variations users would say — "statusline", "status line", "status bar" — are missing, matching the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms' anchor. Not score 4 because the missing statusline vocabulary is the most likely phrasing a user would actually use.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"HUD" is a niche, distinctive term with clear triggers, giving the skill a clear identity with only minor overlap risk against generic statusline or display-configuration skills. Not score 5 because "Configure ... display options" alone (without the HUD qualifier) would overlap with general display/config skills.