Conciseness

The body is lean (~370 words) with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and detail is correctly deferred to the reference. Minor trimmable redundancy remains: 'Use this skill only when the task clearly matches the scope described above' in Limitations duplicates the When to Use / Do Not Use sections, and the boilerplate validation/clarification lines add little. This sits between anchor 4 (efficient, minor trimmable instances) and anchor 5 (every token earns its place), closer to 4.

Actionability

The body's guidance is concrete but incomplete: it gives a specific, executable directive ('Read [the detailed guide](references/detailed-guide.md) before executing this skill') with a loading strategy, plus explicit scope conditions, but contains no code, commands, or minimal inline example — everything actionable lives in the external file. Under anchor 3 ('some concrete guidance but incomplete') rather than 4, which expects concrete code or commands with only minor gaps; it is above anchor 2 because the pointer step is specific and the referenced file exists.

Workflow Clarity

This is a simple router-style skill with a single, unambiguous action: read the guide first, treat its 'safety, prerequisites, and validation requirements as mandatory', and load relevant sections vs. the whole guide depending on task scope — which per the rubric's simple-skill note can score 5 when the single action is unambiguous. No destructive or batch operations appear in the body, so the validation cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clean overview with a well-signaled, one-level-deep reference: the 'Detailed Guide' section links references/detailed-guide.md, which exists as a real 618-line file, contains no nested references, and is organized by topic sections the body explicitly tells Claude to load selectively. This matches anchor 5 (clear overview, well-signaled one-level-deep references, easy navigation); anchor 4's 'minor organization gaps' do not apply.

Specificity

The description lists several specific actions — 'setting up global state, managing component stores, choosing between state solutions, or migrating from legacy patterns' — and names the concrete technologies (Signals, NgRx, RxJS), but the what-clause verb ('Master modern Angular state management') is high-level and coverage has minor gaps (e.g., debugging, optimistic updates from the body are absent). This fits anchor 4 (several specific actions, minor gaps) rather than 3 (only 1-2 concrete actions) or 5 (comprehensive coverage).

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the what ('Master modern Angular state management with Signals, NgRx, and RxJS') and an explicit, concrete when-clause ('Use when setting up global state, managing component stores, choosing between state solutions, or migrating from legacy patterns') with multiple trigger phrases. This matches anchor 5; anchor 4 ('when could be more explicit') does not apply since the when-clause is specific and enumerated.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: 'Signals', 'NgRx', 'RxJS', 'global state', 'component stores', 'migrating from legacy patterns' are phrases Angular developers actually say. A few natural variations are missing (e.g., 'store', 'Akita', 'BehaviorSubject', 'observable'), so it does not reach anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage, but it clearly exceeds anchor 3's partial coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Angular state management' with Signals/NgRx/RxJS triggers is a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk; it even disambiguates from the adjacent React skill in the body ('You need React state management → use react-state-management'). Not anchor 4, since there is no meaningful overlap with closely related skills left unresolved.