Conciseness

The index design teaches nothing Claude already knows and the tables are dense with non-obvious gotcha facts ("tsx + node inspect CLI has a silent source-map failure", "strings -n 8 silently drops short interpolations"), but the read-the-references enforcement message is repeated in ~6 separate blocks (the 🚨 headline, the intro blockquote, the gate rule, the runtime-setup section, the phase-loop section, and "What to Do Right Now"). This fits anchor 3 — mostly efficient but with repeated exhortation that could be consolidated into one stated gate rule. It is above anchor 2 because the repeated content is a deliberate behavioral pressure, not explanation of known concepts, and the tables carry real payload.

Actionability

Concrete decision tables map runtime → reference, tool → reference, and phase → reference with exact file paths; the native-vs-bundled discriminator is fully executable ("du -h ./target" plus "strings -n 12 ./target | rg -iE 'bun|node_modules|...'"); and "What to Do Right Now" is a numbered executable entry sequence. It stops short of anchor 5 because the bulk of copy-paste commands deliberately lives in the references and some directives are behavioral rather than executable ("spawn three Oracles with orthogonal framings").

Workflow Clarity

The phase loop gives a clearly sequenced 0-10 workflow with each step mapped to its reference, and validation checkpoints are explicit: Phase 7 requires a proof "that fails on the pre-fix code", Phase 9 requires verifying "git diff shows only fix + test", and Phase 10 names evidence gates before declaring done. Feedback loops are present (Phase 4 escalates to the Oracle Triple after two consecutive failed rounds), matching anchor 5.

Progressive Disclosure

This is a model index-over-knowledge design: the body states "The knowledge is in references/" and every one of the 22 referenced files exists in the bundle (verified by listing), each link is one level deep with a clear when-to-read condition, and navigation is by decision table rather than prose. The deep link to "partial-runtime-evidence.md#verification-oracle-pattern-for-non-debug-tasks" resolves to a real heading in that file. Fully matches anchor 5.

Specificity

Names three concrete actions spanning the debugging lifecycle — "Runs a hypothesis-driven debugging loop", "escalating to orthogonal oracle angles", "locking the fix with a failing test" — with only a minor gap: "orthogonal oracle angles" is internal jargon a reader outside the skill cannot decode, and verification/cleanup steps go unmentioned. It sits below anchor 5 (fully comprehensive, all actions concrete) but above anchor 3 because more than 1-2 specific actions are listed.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both halves: the "what" is the concrete three-part debugging loop, and "Use for crashes, silent failures, hangs, wrong responses, memory leaks, async misbehavior, or reverse engineering" is a direct when-to-use clause with concrete trigger phrases, matching the anchor-5 example structure exactly. Not below 4 because neither half is missing or implicit.

Trigger Term Quality

"crashes, silent failures, hangs, wrong responses, memory leaks, async misbehavior, or reverse engineering" gives strong natural phrases users actually say when a debugging skill is needed. It falls short of anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage: the most common user words "bug", "debug" (as a user request), "error", "stack trace", and "exception" are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Malfunction-mode triggers (crashes, hangs, memory leaks, silent failures) form a clear niche distinct from review or build skills, but "reverse engineering" and "wrong responses" create minor overlap risk with security-review and LLM-behavior skills. It is more distinct than anchor 3 ("could still overlap with similar skills") but not the minimal-conflict clarity of anchor 5.