Conciseness

Mostly efficient — the phase diagram, dependency tables, and config reference carry genuinely novel Plankton-specific facts — but the trailing "Gabe's addition" section includes narrative padding ("That is the whole point", "Say so if you use it, do not attribute it to the source") and inline date/version specifics that could be tightened. Not 2 because there is little explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and not 4 because the padding and meta-commentary are more than minor.

Actionability

Provides executable commands ("brew install jaq ruff uv", "uv sync --all-extras"), concrete copy steps, a complete config.json, an env-var table, and an oxlint snippet whose `<MEASURED_CEILING>` placeholder is explicitly justified with instructions for filling it. Not 5 because some commands lack surrounding context (e.g., `uv sync --all-extras` presumes a Plankton checkout without saying so) and the placeholder snippet is not copy-paste ready as-is.

Workflow Clarity

Sequences are clear: Quick Start, a numbered Per-Project Integration list, and a 6-step ratchet technique with explicit measure/re-measure checkpoints and a stated escalation guard. Not 5 because the per-project integration steps lack a validation checkpoint (no step confirming the hooks actually fire) and the quick start offers no verification; not 3 because the ratchet workflow's measurement checkpoints are explicit rather than implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

Headers are well-organized, but no bundle files exist and the ~330-line body inlines content that clearly belongs in separate references (full config reference, ECC pairing matrix, oxlint/ratchet detail). The References section points at external repository docs (REFERENCE.md, SETUP.md) rather than clearly-signaled bundled paths. Not 2 because structure and section headers are present and navigable, and not 4 because substantial reference-grade content is inlined rather than split out.

Specificity

Lists several specific actions — "auto-formatting, linting, and Claude-powered fixes on every file edit via hooks" — matching the 'several specific actions; minor gaps in coverage' anchor. It is not 5 because coverage is not comprehensive (no mention of language coverage or config protection), and not 3 because it goes beyond naming the domain with 1-2 actions.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ("auto-formatting, linting, and Claude-powered fixes on every file edit via hooks") and when ("Use when setting up write-time formatting, linting, or auto-fix hooks on file edits") with concrete trigger phrases, matching the anchor-5 example structure. A score of 4 would require the 'when' clause to be less explicit than it is.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases like "setting up write-time formatting, linting, or auto-fix hooks" are phrases a user would plausibly say. Not 5 because common synonyms and concrete tool/language terms (e.g., "code quality", "ruff", "biome", "Python linting") are missing; not 3 because coverage goes beyond merely relevant keywords.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Names the distinct Plankton write-time/on-every-edit niche, so it is mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against general code-quality or linting skills. Not 5 because terms like "linting" and "auto-formatting" could still collide with generic formatter/linter skills.