Conciseness

Assumes Claude's competence throughout — no explanation of what an LLM provider or TypeScript interface is — and every token is project-specific (file paths, exact line numbers, verify commands). It falls short of the score-5 'lean and efficient' anchor because the full ~30-line test template in Step 6 and the two worked Examples partially restate patterns already shown in Steps 1–5, padding that could be trimmed.

Actionability

Copy-paste ready throughout: a complete executable TypeScript class template in Step 1, exact edits with line numbers ('Line 9: Add to DEFAULT_MODELS', 'Line 59: In resolveFromEnv()'), and concrete verify commands per step ('npx tsc --noEmit', 'npm run test -- src/llm/__tests__/ -t config'). Specific examples cover the common cases (LM Studio, seat-based Ollama), matching the 'fully executable; copy-paste ready' anchor.

Workflow Clarity

Seven clearly sequenced steps each ending in an explicit 'Verify:' command forming validation checkpoints, a 'Common Issues' section structured as cause/fix feedback loops, and a Critical section flagging the lock-step invariant ('Missing any one breaks the build'). This matches the score-5 anchor (explicit validation steps plus error-recovery guidance); score 4 would require missing checkpoints, which are not missing.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, so the entire skill is one ~240-line file; it is well-sectioned (Critical / Instructions / Examples / Common Issues) and easy to navigate, matching 'good structure; most content is appropriately placed'. It does not reach score 5 because the under-50-lines exception does not apply and content such as the full test template and worked examples is inlined rather than split into one-level-deep reference files; it is above score 3 since nothing is buried and navigation is clear.

Specificity

Multiple concrete actions with exact artifacts: 'implementing LLMProvider interface with call() and stream() methods', 'Integrates with provider factory in src/llm/index.ts, config detection in src/llm/config.ts, and error handling via tracking and recovery'. This comprehensively covers the what (interface, factory, config, error handling) with file-level specificity, matching the 'multiple specific concrete actions; comprehensive coverage' anchor rather than the score-4 anchor with 'minor gaps in coverage'.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what — 'Adds a new LLM provider implementing LLMProvider interface... Integrates with provider factory... config detection... error handling' — and when — 'Use when adding a new model backend, integrating a third-party LLM API, or extending LLM platform support'. Concrete trigger phrases on both sides match the score-5 anchor; it is not score 4 because the 'when' clause is already explicit and specific, not merely present.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases users would say are present: 'adding a new model backend', 'integrating a third-party LLM API', 'extending LLM platform support'. Falls short of the score-5 anchor because it lacks synonyms and concrete instances users commonly mention (e.g., 'add support for OpenAI/Ollama/LM Studio', 'local model'); it is clearly above score 3 since several natural trigger phrases are covered, not just domain keywords.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche plus explicit negative triggers: 'Do NOT use for fixing bugs in existing providers, modifying existing provider behavior, or changing the LLMProvider interface'. The exclusion clause sharply separates this from provider-debugging and interface-refactoring skills, matching the 'clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk' anchor.