Conciseness

The body is dense and project-specific (no textbook SwiftUI explanations), but the anti-wrapper rule is stated four times (the "Do not" paragraph, the "Do not wrap styled HIG controls" section with its table, the Anti-patterns list, and the Checklist), and includes rhetorical padding like "that is 'the app is CDS', that is 'the app is covered in CTAs'". It could be meaningfully tightened, matching the 3 anchor; it is not a 4 because the duplication is more than minor trimming.

Actionability

Fully concrete guidance throughout: copy-ready Swift call sites (`.buttonStyle(.cds(.primary))`, `Text("Balance").cdsText(.title3)`), exact file paths (`packages/cds-ios/Sources/Components/<Name>.swift`, `Tests/CDSDesignSystemTests/ComponentStyleTests.swift`), and exact commands (`yarn nx run cds-ios:test`). The five-row pattern decision table makes classification mechanical. Matches the 5 anchor for executable, copy-paste-ready coverage.

Workflow Clarity

There is a coherent sequence (read AGENTS.md and Linear refs → classify the pattern → implement steps 1-8 → test/build) closed by a checklist, and a validation step exists ("yarn nx run cds-ios:test"). It is not a 5 because the end-to-end flow must be assembled from separate sections and there is no error-recovery loop (what to do when the test or token-lock fails), and not a 3 because checkpoints and the checklist are explicit.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, so all content lives in SKILL.md with clear section headers, and every external pointer is clearly signaled and one level deep (Linear docs, `packages/cds-ios/AGENTS.md`, `packages/mobile/` sources). Good structure with minor gaps — e.g. the pattern-decision rationale could live in the referenced Linear doc — which matches the 4 anchor; a 5 would require the long-term reference material (RN→iOS map details) to be explicitly split out rather than deferred to external Linear docs.

Specificity

"USE THIS when migrating a CDS React Native component to native iOS, or when writing or reviewing SwiftUI" names concrete actions, and "Covers rewrite patterns (Style vs SwiftUI API vs CDS view), RN visual spec..., tokens, gallery, and tests" lists several specific capabilities. It sits at 4 rather than 5 only because the tail items ("tokens, gallery, and tests") are telegraphic topic labels rather than fully stated concrete actions.

Completeness

The description explicitly answers "when" with a concrete trigger clause ("USE THIS when migrating... or when writing or reviewing SwiftUI in packages/cds-ios or apps/ios-gallery") and "what" with the enumerated coverage ("rewrite patterns... RN visual spec... HIG-styled control enforcement, tokens, gallery, and tests"). This matches the 5 anchor's pattern of both what and when with concrete trigger phrases; the 4 anchor would require a weaker or less explicit 'when'.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger terms users would actually say are present: "migrating", "React Native", "native iOS", "SwiftUI", "writing or reviewing". It is not a 5 because common variations and synonyms are missing (e.g. ".swift", "Swift", "iOS app" on their own), though the scoping to specific packages reduces the need for them.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It occupies a clear niche (CDS RN-to-SwiftUI migration) with triggers scoped to named codebases ("packages/cds-ios or apps/ios-gallery"), so it is unlikely to fire for a generic SwiftUI or non-CDS iOS skill. Minimal conflict risk, matching the 5 anchor.