Conciseness

Bullets like "The observer is process-wide, best-effort, and fail-open." and "Keep identifiers opaque and attributes low-cardinality." are maximally dense, assume Claude's competence, and contain no padding or explanations of known concepts. Not 4 because there is no identifiable content to trim.

Actionability

Provides real code (`axllm::set_usage_observer([&usage_queue](axllm::AxUsageEvent event){...})` and the two-line core pattern), exact API symbols, and a runnable example path (`src/examples/cpp/generation/usage_observer.cpp`). Not 5 because the snippets depend on undefined context (`llm`, `usage_queue`) and are not fully copy-paste ready; not 3 because the guidance is executable code plus precise behavioral directives, not pseudocode.

Workflow Clarity

The body flows logically from "When To Use" to "Core Pattern" to observer registration with an explicit teardown note ("Clear it during test teardown or shutdown"), and guardrails act as checkpoints ("Start from package examples for exact native syntax before inventing a new call shape"). Not 5 because there is no explicit ordered sequence for integrating the observer and no validate-fix-retry loop; not 3 because no destructive or batch operations exist and the core action is unambiguous.

Progressive Disclosure

Clearly signaled one-level-deep pointers to package materials ("Package API docs: `API.md` and `axir-api.json`", "Runnable examples: `examples/`") with no bundle files available, so inlining is the only option. Not 5 because the inlined "Relevant API Surface" symbol list partially duplicates `API.md` and pushes the body beyond a lean overview; not 3 because references are clearly signaled and well organized rather than buried.

Specificity

Enumerates six concrete capability areas ("agent tracing, centralized and multi-tenant usage accounting, action logs, runtime diagnostics, replay, and production debugging") within the action "writing C++ code with `axllm`". Not 5 because these are capability domains rather than discrete concrete actions; not 3 because coverage is broad and specific, well beyond 1-2 actions.

Completeness

An explicit trigger clause is present ("Use when writing C++ code with `axllm` for..."), and the 'what' (writing C++ code against axllm for those functions) is stated but fused into the when-clause. Not 5 because the 'what' is not independently and explicitly declared as a capability statement; not 3 because both elements are present and the trigger is explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases are present ("agent tracing", "action logs", "runtime diagnostics", "production debugging", "C++", "axllm") that users of this package would actually say. Not 5 because common synonyms like "observability", "telemetry", "monitoring", or "token usage" are missing; not 3 because keyword coverage is good and includes the package name itself.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"C++ code with `axllm`" pins a clear niche combining language, package, and observability functions, giving minimal conflict risk. Not 4 because the language-plus-package scoping is sharper than "minor overlap with closely related skills" — even a sibling TypeScript axllm skill would not collide.