Conciseness

Mostly efficient with clear sections, but includes content Claude already knows or could derive: a ~60-line faker seed script and a ~40-line standard RLS policy set inlined in full, a Tier/Category/Domain metadata header that serves no runtime purpose, and a 'When to Use' section that duplicates the frontmatter description. Matches 'Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'; not 4 because the two large code blocks plus redundant sections are more than minor trimming.

Actionability

Concrete, near-executable guidance throughout: full SQL RLS policies, a complete Drizzle-style seed script, Mermaid ERD syntax, and runnable commands ('npx prisma-erd-generator'). Not 5 because of minor gaps: the RLS examples compare uuid columns to current_setting(...)::text without a uuid cast and omit grants for app_user, and the 'Full Schema Example' section points to a file that does not exist.

Workflow Clarity

The 3-step design process (requirements → entities → relationships → cross-cutting concerns) is clearly sequenced, but there are no validation checkpoints anywhere — no verify-migration-on-a-copy step, no RLS test procedure integrated into the flow. The scoring note explicitly caps database-operation workflows without feedback loops at 3; the 'RLS not tested' pitfall mentions testing but never wires it into the process. Not 2 because the sequence itself is coherent and well-defined.

Progressive Disclosure

Good section structure and one clearly signaled reference ('→ See references/full-schema-examples.md for details'), but that file does not exist — no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directory is present, so the pointer is dead. Additionally, bulky content that belongs in reference files (the full seed script and full RLS policy set) is inlined in SKILL.md. Matches 'Some structure but could be better organized; references present but not clearly signaled; content that should be separate is inline'; not 4 because a broken reference and the inlined bulk exceed 'minor organization gaps'.

Specificity

Quotes four concrete actions — "create ERD diagrams", "normalize database schemas", "design table relationships", "plan schema migrations" — matching the anchor 'Lists several specific actions; minor gaps in coverage'. Not 5 because coverage has gaps: it never states what the skill produces (migrations code, types, seed data, RLS policies) and 'plan schema migrations' is weaker than generating them.

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit and concrete ("Use when the user asks to create ERD diagrams, normalize database schemas..."), but there is no explicit 'what' statement — the skill's capabilities are only implied through the trigger verbs, and the guideline says to score only what is explicitly stated. Falls between anchor 2 ('only when present without what', but far more specific than its example) and anchor 4 ('has both what and when', but the what is absent).

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases users would say: "ERD diagrams", "database schemas", "table relationships", "schema migrations". Not 5 because common synonyms and variations are missing ("entity relationship diagram", "data model", "database design", ".sql", "Postgres"), which the 5 anchor expects; not 3 because coverage clearly goes beyond the 'some relevant keywords' level.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The database-schema-design niche with triggers like "normalize database schemas" and "ERD diagrams" is mostly distinct. Not 5 because "plan schema migrations" overlaps with generic migration/deployment skills and "ERD diagrams" with general diagramming skills — minor overlap risk with closely related skills, exactly the anchor-4 wording.