Conciseness

The body is dense with non-obvious operational specifics (e.g. "xr enter can return success: true even when the session request fails", the atan2 elevation-vs-angle warning) and teaches nothing Claude already knows. Not 5 because the 13-row console-log table and step 6's Quest HTTPS/pairing detail are lengthy inline material that could be trimmed or split out.

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: exact npx @iwsdk/cli commands with --input-json payloads, a complete iwsdk.config.json block, concrete angle formulas with bounds, and per-variant selection recipes. Copy-paste ready and covers the common cases plus edge cases like ring-centre aiming and session-ending clicks.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1-6 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints ("Continue only when xr status reports deviceName: Meta VR Glasses", "always confirm sessionActive") and error-recovery loops ("fix dev.emulator.device and re-check"), capped by a Report checklist. Not 4: no meaningful validation gap remains.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well organized, but the ~280-line skill has no reference files at all, and clearly separable material (the [iwsdk][gaze] log-message table, step 6's Quest setup details) is inlined. Not 4 because there are no references to be "mostly clear"; not 2 because the in-body structure and navigation are good, not minimal.

Specificity

Names the domain and three concrete test areas ("gaze-and-pinch input, the glasses' narrower field of view, and gaze preview on a Quest without eye tracking"), matching anchor 4's several specific actions with minor gaps. It is not 5 because parts of the skill's coverage (fallback/priority testing, on-headset runs, reporting) are absent from the action list, and not 3 because it goes well beyond 1-2 actions.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ("Test an IWSDK app for Meta VR Glasses — gaze-and-pinch input, the glasses' narrower field of view, and gaze preview on a Quest") and when ("Use when the user targets Meta VR Glasses, asks for gaze or eye-tracking input, or wants to check that content fits the glasses' view") with concrete trigger phrases, a direct match to anchor 5.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: "targets Meta VR Glasses", "asks for gaze or eye-tracking input", "wants to check that content fits the glasses' view". Not 5 because common synonyms and variations (e.g. "field of view" as a trigger, "smart glasses") are only implied via the what-clause rather than covered.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The pairing of "IWSDK" with "Meta VR Glasses" plus gaze/eye-tracking triggers carves out a clear niche with minimal conflict risk, even against the related iwsdk-native-xr-test skill whose triggers differ.