Conciseness

The body is project-specific throughout with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, and code comments are terse and purposeful. Minor instances of over-explanation remain — the third near-identical boilerplate vitest case and slight overlap between the 'Critical' section and Steps 1-4 — so it fits the 'efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed' anchor rather than the lean-every-token-earns-its-place anchor.

Actionability

Provides copy-paste-ready TypeScript templates for the check function, constants, registration, and tests, plus exact executable commands ("grep -r \"'your_unique_check_id'\" src/scoring/checks/\", "npm test src/scoring/checks/__tests__/your-file.test.ts") and three worked examples with concrete triggers and point outcomes. Placeholders in the main template are inherent to a template skill and are explicitly patterned after named existing examples (TOKEN_BUDGET_THRESHOLDS, CODE_BLOCK_THRESHOLDS).

Workflow Clarity

Five clearly sequenced steps each end with an explicit validation checkpoint (verify CATEGORY_MAX budget, verify ID uniqueness via grep, verify filterChecksForTarget(), run existing tests, run new tests before shipping), and the Common Issues section supplies error-recovery loops for each failure mode — matching the anchor for clear sequence with explicit validation steps and feedback loops.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well-organized (Critical, Instructions, Examples, Common Issues) with no dangling references, but the ~280-line body is monolithic: the Examples and Common Issues sections are natural candidates for one-level-deep reference files, and there are no reference files in the bundle. This fits 'good structure; most content appropriately placed; minor organization gaps' rather than the well-split top anchor.

Specificity

Names the domain plus several concrete specifics — "Follows the Check[] return pattern", "uses point constants from src/scoring/constants.ts", "integrates via filterChecksForTarget()" — matching the anchor for several specific actions with minor gaps. Not 5 because the description centers on a single action (adding a check) with implementation constraints rather than comprehensively listing capabilities.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ("Add a new deterministic scoring check in src/scoring/checks/ that evaluates config quality") and when ("Use when user says 'add scoring check', 'new check', 'modify scoring criteria', or works in src/scoring/checks/") with concrete trigger phrases, plus a negative exclusion ("Do NOT use for display changes or refactoring scoring logic"). This matches the anchor for clearly and explicitly answering both what AND when.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural phrases users would actually say — "'add scoring check'", "'new check'", "'modify scoring criteria'", "works in src/scoring/checks/" — giving good keyword coverage. Not 5 because common synonyms and variations (e.g., 'scoring rules', 'evaluation criteria', 'point system') are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche tied to this repository's scoring architecture (src/scoring/checks/, constants.ts, filterChecksForTarget()) with explicit boundary guidance ("Do NOT use for display changes or refactoring scoring logic"), giving minimal conflict risk with other skills — matching the top anchor.