Conciseness

Lean and efficient throughout: the Quick Reference table, the exact one-line CI sequence, and terse per-failure diagnostics carry maximum information per token. Nothing explains concepts Claude already knows — even the `--locked` justification ("ensures the lockfile is respected - this matches .github/workflows/test.yml") is earned context, not padding. Anchor 5; nothing to trim, so not 4.

Actionability

Every instruction is a copy-paste-ready command: the exact CI chain (`cargo fmt --check && cargo clippy --locked -- -D warnings && cargo test --locked`), a change-type-to-command mapping ("API types (src/commands/<cmd>/api.rs) - run that command's tests first"), precise test filters (`cargo test --test dataprime input`), and concrete failure fixes. Fully executable with common cases covered — anchor 5, not 4.

Workflow Clarity

Clear decision procedure ("What to Run After a Change" maps each change type to its verification level), an explicit checkpoint ("Run it before committing or creating a PR"), and genuine feedback loops in "Interpreting Failures" (failure class → likely cause → fix, e.g., deserialization failures → check serde attributes). Anchor 5 — validation steps and error-recovery loops are both explicit, so not 4.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is ~55 lines with no bundle files and no content that belongs in separate files; sections are well organized (table, CI check, decision guide, test targeting, failure interpretation) and it cleanly signals its boundary ("for writing new tests, see the add-command skill"). Per the rubric's simple-skill exception, well-organized sections with no external-reference needs warrant 5; not 4 since nothing is misplaced.

Specificity

Concrete actions are named throughout the trigger list ("run tests", "run clippy", "check formatting", "cargo fmt", "CI checks", "verify changes") — several specific actions with minor gaps. It falls short of 5 because the skill's own capabilities are never stated directly; the actions appear only as quoted user requests, not as a capability statement.

Completeness

The "when" is maximally explicit, but the "what" is only weakly implied through the quoted user phrases — the description never states what the skill does (e.g., "Runs tests, lint, and format checks for the cx CLI"). Per the guideline to score only what is explicitly stated, this mirrors anchor 3 (one half clear, the other weakly implied); it is not 4 because no explicit capability statement exists, and not 2 because the trigger list does convey the action domain.

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural-term coverage including synonyms and exact tool commands: "run tests", "test this", "check if tests pass", "cargo test", "run clippy", "lint this", "check formatting", "cargo fmt", "CI checks", "does this pass tests", "pre-commit check", plus the softer phrasings "make sure this works" and "check for issues". No natural term for this domain is missing, matching the anchor 5 example's synonym-plus-tool-command coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The cargo/clippy/fmt/CI terms carve a distinct niche, but broad catch-all phrases like "verify changes", "make sure this works", and "check for issues" overlap with code-review and general verification skills. Anchor 4 (mostly distinct, minor overlap risk with closely related skills) is the best fit — not 5 due to those generic triggers, not 3 since the majority of trigger terms are unambiguous.