Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient — Core Concepts and the step parameters are genuinely new information (MCP tool semantics Claude cannot know) — but there is noticeable repetition: the "When to use" section restates the description, "Always call resolve-library-id first" is repeated in Step 1, and the three worked examples largely restate the four steps. This matches 'Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'; it is above 2 because there is no padding about concepts Claude already knows, and below 4 because the redundancy is real, not minor.

Actionability

The guidance is fully executable: exact MCP tool names (resolve-library-id, query-docs), exact parameters with concrete values (libraryName: "Next.js", libraryId: "/vercel/next.js"), explicit selection criteria (name match, benchmark score, reputation, version), and a hard call limit of 3 with a fallback. Per the rubric's code-vs-instruction note, an instruction-only skill with guidance this specific earns the top anchor.

Workflow Clarity

The four-step sequence (resolve → select best match → query docs → use) is clearly ordered, with selection criteria acting as a checkpoint and the 3-call limit plus 'state the uncertainty' acting as an error-recovery fallback. It is not 5 because there is no guidance for failure paths such as resolve returning no results or an ambiguous match; it is above 3 because checkpoints are present, not just implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The single file is well organized into clearly signaled sections (Core Concepts, When to use, How it works, Examples, Best Practices) with no buried or nested references, and no bundle files exist that should be linked. It matches 'Good structure; most content is appropriately placed; minor organization gaps' — the three near-duplicate examples could be consolidated or moved to a reference file, keeping it below the lean, cleanly split top anchor.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("library and framework docs"), the concrete mechanism ("via Context7 MCP instead of training data"), and several specific activation contexts ("setup questions, API references, code examples"), matching the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor. It falls short of 5 because the core capability is a single action (fetch docs) and the two underlying tools are not named; it is above 3 because it goes well beyond naming the domain with one generic action.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what ("Use up-to-date library and framework docs via Context7 MCP instead of training data") and when ("Activates for setup questions, API references, code examples, or when the user names a framework") with concrete trigger phrases, exactly matching the top anchor.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like "setup questions", "API references", "code examples", and concrete framework names ("React, Next.js, Prisma") give good keyword coverage per the anchor 'Good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing'. It is not 5 because common variations users would say — "documentation", "latest version", "how to use X", file formats — are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Context7 MCP niche with framework-name triggers is mostly distinct, matching 'Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk'. It is not 5 because broad triggers like "code examples" could plausibly fire for general coding skills where training data suffices; it is clearly above 3 since the niche is well-defined and unlikely to collide with unrelated skills.