Conciseness

Mostly signal (no teaching of concepts Claude already knows), but several rules are stated twice — implementation gating appears in both Definitions ("MUST NOT begin until at least one discovery question has been answered") and Scope notes ("MUST NOT begin the implementation phase before at least one discovery question has been answered"), the Terraform "don't ask about IaC preference or cloud platform" example appears in both Codebase Analysis and the following paragraph, and "Wait until I have responsed to transition to picker based workflow" literally repeats the sentence before it. The 'Contextual offers' section is a ~300-word run-on paragraph that duplicates policy available in the referenced sibling skill, and typos ("addititional", "responsed", "vauge") indicate unpolished text.

Actionability

Concrete and executable in most places — verbatim opener prompts ("Before we dive in, tell me what you're building..."), a specific verification command (`aws sts get-caller-identity`), option-length limits ("under 15 words"), exact offer-line templates, and three numbered conditions for showing 'Start implementation'. The gap: the skill mandates a picker-question format throughout but never shows one fully worked example question with its answer options, which is the core artifact of the flow.

Workflow Clarity

The discovery phase is well sequenced with explicit gates (scan codebase → free-form prompt → wait for reply → one picker question per turn → three-condition 'Start implementation' trigger), but the implementation phase — which writes scaffold and code directly into the project — is two sentences with no validation or verification checkpoint (no build/test/IaC-plan verification step). Per the rubric, missing validation in batch code-writing operations caps this dimension at 3.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a single ~205-line monolith with no bundle of its own; the detailed contextual-offers policy (caps, host mapping, eligibility rules) is exactly the material that belongs in a reference file, and the body even points to `../contextual-offers-for-startups/SKILL.md` for the full rules. Cross-references to sibling files are clearly signaled with markdown links, but substantial policy content that should be separate is inlined, matching anchor 3 rather than 4.

Specificity

Names multiple concrete actions spanning the full workflow — "gathers requirements through picker-based questions (intent, scope, constraints, preferences)", "scans the codebase for what it can already infer", "writes an AWS architectural scaffold and implementation directly into the project" — with comprehensive coverage of the skill's phases. Anchor 4 would apply if a phase were missing or generic, but all three stages are concrete and complete.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ("Interactive discovery + implementation workflow that gathers requirements... scans the codebase... then writes an AWS architectural scaffold and implementation") and when ("Use when the user wants to build a new app, scaffold a project, or expand/refactor an existing one on AWS"), with concrete trigger phrases plus a "Do not use for" exclusion list. Matches the anchor-5 example pattern exactly.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural trigger phrases users would actually say — "build a new app", "scaffold a project", "expand/refactor an existing one on AWS" — but common variations like "new project", "create an app", or "add a feature" are absent. Not a 3 (the terms are natural user language, not jargon) and not a 5 (synonym coverage is not comprehensive).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (structured discovery flow followed by code changes, AWS-focused) with an explicit exclusion list redirecting to named sibling skills — "architecture advice/recommendations without code changes (see architect-for-startups)", "agent POC (see agent-advisor)", "migrating an existing GCP/Azure/Heroku workload... (see gcp-to-aws / azure-to-aws / heroku-to-aws / llm-to-bedrock)". Conflict risk with adjacent skills is minimal.