Conciseness

The body is mostly dense, non-obvious ASO domain knowledge (character limits, indexing rules, Vitals thresholds) with no basic-concept padding, matching 'Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'. It is below level 4 because the brand-maturity tier rules are stated three times (Phase 1.5, the tier-dependent checklist items, and again in references/scoring-criteria.md) and the inline 'Key Facts' sections duplicate the spec reference files.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: copy-paste search queries ('site:apps.apple.com "{app name}"'), exact character limits and thresholds (crash >1.09%, ANR >0.47%), explicit scoring weights, per-field extraction checklists, and a report template with concrete rules. It fits 'specific examples cover the common cases'; the one tool-dependent step (screenshot capture) explicitly handles the fallback of asking the user.

Workflow Clarity

Phases are clearly sequenced (fetch -> tier assessment -> scoring -> optional competitor comparison -> report) with explicit validation/error-recovery steps: handling client-side-rendered incomplete fetches ('note gaps and work with what's available. Ask the user to paste missing fields'), flagging unverifiable promotional text, and checklists for complex processes. This matches the level-5 anchor; it is not a destructive/batch skill, so no cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

All five referenced files exist (apple-specs.md, google-play-specs.md, benchmarks.md, scoring-criteria.md, report-template.md) and are signaled one level deep at point of use with purpose descriptions, matching 'Good structure; most content is appropriately placed; references mostly clear'. It is not level 5 because the inline 'Apple App Store — Key Facts' and 'Google Play — Key Facts' sections substantially duplicate the dedicated spec reference files, blurring the overview-vs-detail split.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('App Store or Google Play listings', 'ASO best practices') and one concrete action ('Audit'), matching the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'. It does not list several specific actions like scoring, competitor comparison, or report generation, so it falls short of level 4.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (audit store listings against ASO best practices), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. It is above level 2 because the 'what' is concrete rather than vague.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms users would say are present: 'App Store', 'Google Play', 'ASO', 'audit', matching 'Good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing'. It is not level 5 because spelled-out synonyms like 'app store optimization' (only the acronym ASO appears), 'app ranking', or 'app listing optimization' are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

ASO auditing is a clear niche with distinct triggers (store names, ASO), matching 'Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills'. It is not level 5 because adjacent marketing skills (e.g., page-cro, ad-creative) could plausibly trigger on app-marketing-adjacent phrasing.