Conciseness

The body is dense with package-specific facts Claude would not know ('Numeric bounds never define a Score rubric', 'Choice allows 1-255 labels; Score requires 2-10 rubric levels') and avoids explaining known concepts. Minor trim candidates keep it below the lean score-5 anchor: cross-language details ('C++ uses valueDescriptions', 'only TypeScript can infer literal question keys') and the long prose 'Typesafe / Jev' section that could be structured as bullets.

Actionability

The Core Pattern gives a concrete Rust call shape ('ai("typesafe", json!({"api_key": api_key, "trueThreshold": 0.9}))?') and the Guardrails direct the agent to package examples ('Start from package examples for exact native syntax'). It falls short of score 5 because only one case has code — the native question path and two-program hybrid generation described in prose get no example — and the snippet lacks imports and surrounding context.

Workflow Clarity

'When To Use' provides routing guidance ('Use Jev for typed decisions', 'Use native questions for probabilities', 'Compose a separate generative program for prose') and the Guardrails sketch a process, but there is no sequenced workflow with checkpoints (e.g., consult the capabilities manifest, adapt an example, validate via the no-key transport before using real credentials). This matches the score-3 anchor of implicit sequence with missing checkpoints rather than score 4's mostly-present checkpoints.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are clearly organized and the body points to 'API.md', 'examples/', and 'src/examples/rust/generation/' for details, but no bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/) actually exist, so none of the referenced paths are resolvable within the skill. Additionally the inline 'Relevant API Surface' name dump is content that belongs in a separate reference file, matching the score-3 anchor of inline content that should be separate with imperfectly signaled references.

Specificity

Names the domain ('writing Rust code with `axllm`') and lists several concrete feature surfaces ('Typesafe Jev boolean/class signatures', 'value descriptions', 'native Noul/Choice/Score', 'hybrid generation'), but these are noun phrases without action verbs. Coverage is broad enough to sit above the score-3 anchor ('1-2 concrete actions'), just short of the top anchor's fully action-framed comprehensiveness.

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit ('Use when writing Rust code with `axllm`') and the 'what' is present as a concrete list of covered features, satisfying the score-4 anchor. It falls short of score 5 because the 'what' is a topic list rather than a clear statement of what the skill actually does; it is well above score 3 since no cap applies (an explicit 'Use when' clause is present).

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms like 'Rust code', 'axllm', and 'Typesafe Jev' would plausibly be said by a user needing this skill, but there are no synonyms or common variations, and terms like 'Noul conversion' are internal jargon a user would rarely say. Good keyword coverage with a few natural terms missing, matching the score-4 anchor rather than the comprehensive score-5 anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The combination of 'Rust code with `axllm`' and 'Typesafe Jev boolean/class signatures' defines a clear niche with distinct triggers that no other skill would match. Conflict risk is minimal, matching the score-5 anchor exactly.