Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — e.g., "Each direct subpackage of `{{BASE_PACKAGE}}` is a module. `./mvnw verify` fails if another module reaches into its nested packages or if modules form a cycle" states only project-specific facts, and annotations like `@ApplicationModuleListener` are used without tutorial explanation. Every sentence instructs; nothing re-teaches Spring Modulith concepts, matching anchor 5.

Actionability

Concrete and mostly executable: exact layout ("{{BASE_PACKAGE}}.<module>.internal"), exact test path ("src/test/java/{{BASE_PATH}}/<module>/<Module>ModuleTests.java"), annotations, and the command "Run `./mvnw verify`". However, no code snippet is given for the test class or the public API surface, and the placeholders {{BASE_PACKAGE}}/{{BASE_PATH}} are never defined or explained in the skill — minor gaps that fit anchor 4 rather than 5's fully copy-paste-ready coverage.

Workflow Clarity

A clear, well-ordered six-step sequence with checkpoints: step 1 verifies name availability ("Check that no existing module owns it") and step 6 runs the gate ("Run `./mvnw verify`"). It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no error-recovery loop telling Claude what to do when verify fails (e.g., read the ModuleBoundariesTests report, fix the offending reference, re-run), though it comfortably exceeds anchor 3's implicit-checkpoint level. The destructive/batch cap does not apply since adding a module is an additive operation with verification present.

Progressive Disclosure

At roughly 20 lines with a single heading, a two-line framing sentence, and a numbered procedure, the skill is well-organized and needs no external files — the simple-skill guideline allows a 5 here. Its only external pointer ("the `Modules` section of `AGENTS.md`") is clearly signaled and one level deep, and no bundle files exist to reference.

Specificity

"Adds a new application module to this Spring Modulith project with the package layout the ModuleBoundariesTests gate expects, and a module-scoped integration test" lists several specific actions (create the module, produce the expected package layout, add the integration test), but coverage stops there — steps like updating the module registry or running verification are not mentioned. This fits anchor 4 (several specific actions, minor gaps) and not 3, since more than 1-2 actions are named.

Completeness

The description explicitly answers both questions: what ("Adds a new application module... with the package layout the ModuleBoundariesTests gate expects, and a module-scoped integration test") and when ("Use when the user asks for a new module, bounded context, or feature area that doesn't belong in an existing module") with concrete trigger phrases, matching anchor 5 exactly. It is not a 4 because the 'when' clause is already explicit and specific rather than improvable.

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when the user asks for a new module, bounded context, or feature area" supplies three natural synonymous phrases users would actually say. It falls short of anchor 5's comprehensive coverage (no additional variants like "new context", "add a service", or project-specific naming cues beyond those three), but clearly exceeds anchor 3's partial keyword coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Spring Modulith project", "ModuleBoundariesTests gate", "bounded context", and "module-scoped integration test" carve out a clear niche with distinct triggers; no other skill would plausibly claim these phrases. Not a 4 because there is no meaningful overlap with a closely related skill's territory.