Conciseness

The 33-line body is lean with zero over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows; even the findings-policy paragraph ('Treat findings and the score as diagnostic leads... Do not rerun merely to raise the score') is non-inferable operational guidance. Every token earns its place, matching anchor 5.

Actionability

A copy-paste-ready command ('npx -y react-doctor@latest . --verbose --diff') plus a compact flag table ('.', '--verbose', '--diff', '--score') is concrete and executable, matching anchor 4. It falls short of anchor 5 only because the full-audit variant (command without '--diff') is described in prose but never shown as an example command.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is clear: an explicit scope decision rule ('Use --diff for a changed-code diagnostic question. Omit it only when a full React code-health audit is requested'), a concrete run command, and an explicit post-run validation checkpoint ('Verify a finding against actual behavior and the task's scope before fixing it'). The operation is read-only so the destructive/batch cap does not apply, and the single action is unambiguous, satisfying the simple-skill exception.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, has no bundle files, and needs no external references; content is organized into well-signaled sections ('Choose the scope', 'Command', flag table). Per the rubric's simple-skill guideline, this scores 5 on well-organized sections alone.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('React code-health audit', 'its scan') but states almost no concrete capabilities — what it scans for (security, performance, correctness) and what it outputs (0-100 score) appear only in the body, not the description. This matches anchor 2 ('names the domain but actions are minimal or generic') rather than 3, since fewer than 1-2 concrete actions are explicitly stated.

Completeness

An explicit 'Use when...' clause with concrete triggers plus negative boundary guidance ('Not a default step after React changes or before committing') makes the 'when' stronger than anchor 4 requires, but the 'what' is vague ('its scan'), weaker than anchor 4's concrete capability list. It lands noticeably above the anchor-3 midpoint, so 4 rather than 3.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrasings are present: 'requests React Doctor', 'React code-health audit', 'concrete React diagnostic question', 'after React changes'. Good keyword coverage matching anchor 4, though common variants like 'audit my React app' or 'React code quality' are missing, so it falls short of anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The named-tool trigger ('React Doctor') and the narrow code-health-scanning niche give mostly distinct triggers with only minor overlap risk against generic React code-review or lint skills, matching anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's minimal-conflict bar.