Conciseness

The body is efficient and assumes competence — it never explains what Bash, MCP, or LSPs are, and uses terse flag lists and mapping tables throughout ('--extra-header KEY VALUE (repeatable)', 'Deny wins over allow'). It sits at 4 rather than 5 because of minor trimmable redundancy: the 'crushrc at a glance' example largely duplicates the Commands section, and a few prose asides ('Because it is real Bash you get includes, secrets, conditionals, and variables for free') restate what the example already shows. It is clearly above the 3 anchor, which requires unnecessary explanation.

Actionability

Nearly everything is copy-paste ready: full command syntax ('mcp add <name> --type stdio|sse|http [flags]'), complete flag enumerations, and executable examples covering the common cases ('provider add deepseek --type completions --base-url ... --api-key "${DEEPSEEK_API_KEY:?set DEEPSEEK_API_KEY}"'). This matches the 5 anchor — executable guidance with specific examples for the common cases — with no pseudocode gaps that would drop it to 4.

Workflow Clarity

The document sequences the config task well: format choice and discovery priority up front, then per-entity command references, then runtime semantics ('Statements run top to bottom; later statements win'), and edge-case behavior is explicit ('If a directory has both crushrc and crush.json, they merge (crushrc wins on conflicts) and Crush logs a warning'). It falls short of the 5 anchor because there is no validation checkpoint — no step for verifying that a newly written config loads correctly (e.g., re-running Crush and checking the warning log or `crush models` output). It is above the 3 anchor since ordering, merge rules, and failure behavior ('A failing $(command) aborts the load') are stated, not implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

Section structure and in-document navigation are good (clear headers, working anchors like [Hooks runtime](#hooks-runtime), a scoped [Legacy JSON format](#legacy-json-format) section). However, at over 400 lines with no bundle files, substantial content that belongs in separate reference files is inlined — the ~90-line Hooks runtime protocol (stdin schema, env-var table, exit codes, Claude Code compatibility) and the crushrc↔crush.json mapping tables are prime candidates for references/hooks.md and references/json.md. This matches the 3 anchor ('some structure but could be better organized; content that should be separate is inline') rather than 2, since the inline content is well-sectioned and navigable, and rather than 4, which assumes most content is appropriately split across files.

Specificity

The description lists multiple specific concrete actions — 'writing crushrc (the Bash config format) or crush.json, setting up providers, models, LSPs, MCP servers, hooks, skills, permissions, or changing Crush behavior' — giving comprehensive coverage of the skill's scope. It matches the 5 anchor ('lists multiple specific concrete actions; comprehensive coverage') rather than 4, which would imply minor coverage gaps; every major config surface is named.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: 'what' is 'writing crushrc ... or crush.json, setting up providers, models, LSPs, MCP servers, hooks, skills, permissions' and 'when' is the explicit trigger 'Use when the user needs help configuring Crush'. This matches the 5 anchor (both what and when explicit with concrete trigger phrases), not 4, whose 'when' clause would be less specific.

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage with natural terms users would say: 'configuring', 'providers', 'models', 'MCP servers', 'hooks', 'permissions', plus format names 'crushrc' and 'crush.json'. It falls short of the 5 anchor because common variations like 'API keys', 'config file', or 'change settings' are absent, but it is well above the 3 anchor's 'missing common variations'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description names a specific product ('Crush') and its specific config artifacts ('crushrc', 'crush.json'), giving it a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk with generic configuration skills. It clearly matches the 5 anchor rather than 4, which would require some overlap with closely related skills.