Conciseness

The ~60-line body is lean and well-organized into tight bullet sections with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows; not level 2 because there is no padding to trim.

Actionability

Concrete behavioral rules ('Remove imports/variables/functions that YOUR changes made unused', 'Match existing style'), transformation examples, and a plan template give specific actionable guidance; per the rubric's instruction-only note, absence of code is not penalized when guidance is actionable.

Workflow Clarity

Section 4 defines a clear sequence — transform tasks into verifiable goals, loop until verified — with explicit 'verify: [check]' checkpoints and a feedback loop, matching the validation-checkpoints anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

Self-contained skill with four well-organized headed sections and no need for external references; per the rubric's simple-skills note, well-organized sections alone justify a 3.

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'avoid overcomplication, make surgical changes, surface assumptions, and define verifiable success criteria' — matching the 'lists multiple specific concrete actions' anchor rather than the single-domain level 2.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ('Behavioral guidelines to reduce common LLM coding mistakes') and when ('Use when writing, reviewing, or refactoring code...'), satisfying the explicit-trigger requirement that would otherwise cap completeness at 2.

Trigger Term Quality

'writing, reviewing, or refactoring code' are natural phrases a user would say, giving good coverage; not level 2 because common coding-activity verbs are present rather than missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Though it has a niche (behavioral meta-guidelines), the triggers 'writing, reviewing, or refactoring code' are broad enough to overlap with nearly every coding skill; not level 3 because conflict risk remains, not level 1 because it is not purely generic.