Conciseness

The body is short and mostly efficient (priority table, terse bullets), but it contains a duplicated "When to Use" heading and a vacuous filler sentence ("This skill is applicable to execute the workflow or actions described in the overview.") that add tokens without information. This matches 'mostly efficient but could be tightened'; it is not a 2 because the padding is limited to one redundant section rather than several.

Actionability

The body only describes rather than instructs: "Contains rules across 8 categories", "Each rule file contains: Brief explanation... Correct SQL example...". There is no executable guidance (no SQL, no commands, no concrete rule) in the body itself, and the referenced rule files (rules/query-missing-indexes.md, rules/schema-partial-indexes.md, AGENTS.md) do not exist in the bundle, so even the navigation guidance cannot be followed. This fits 'minimal concrete guidance; high-level hints but missing the specific steps to execute'; not a 1 because the category/priority table with prefixes is concrete navigational guidance.

Workflow Clarity

An implied lookup workflow exists (consult the priority table, then read the relevant rule file, with AGENTS.md as the compiled fallback), but the sequence is implicit, the referenced files are missing, and the duplicate "When to Use" section with a meaningless sentence muddies the structure. This matches 'sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit'; not a 2 because the priority table does give a clear prioritization scheme.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is structured as an index with one-level-deep references that are clearly signaled (paths listed in a code block, a dedicated "Full Compiled Document" section), but none of the referenced files exist in the bundle — there is no rules/ directory and no AGENTS.md — so the disclosure structure is broken in practice. Per the guideline to score against the actual bundle structure, this lands at 'some structure but could be better organized'; not a 4 because dangling references are more than a minor organization gap.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("Postgres performance optimization") and gestures at concrete activities ("writing, reviewing, or optimizing Postgres queries, schema designs"), but the core capability statement rests on the generic phrase "best practices" rather than enumerating what the skill actually does, matching the 'domain plus 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive' anchor. It is above anchor 2 because it goes beyond a single generic action attached to the domain, but below anchor 4 because the 'what' clause itself lacks specific capability coverage.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: what ("Postgres performance optimization and best practices from Supabase") and when ("Use this skill when writing, reviewing, or optimizing Postgres queries, schema designs, or database configurations") with concrete trigger phrases, mirroring the anchor-5 pattern. Not below 4 because the 'when' clause is fully explicit, not weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger terms are present and well chosen: "Postgres queries", "schema designs", "database configurations", "writing, reviewing, or optimizing" — phrasings a user would plausibly say. It falls short of anchor 5 because common synonyms like "SQL", "PostgreSQL", "indexes", or "slow queries" are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Postgres/Supabase niche with triggers like "Postgres queries" and "schema designs" is mostly distinct with minimal conflict risk. It is not a 5 because generic SQL-optimization or database-administration skills would still overlap on these triggers, and no PostgreSQL-specific qualifiers (e.g., "PostgreSQL", "Postgres extensions") widen the distinction.