Conciseness

The body is dense and structured with no padding of basic concepts — the naming table, tracking-plan format, and funnel diagram all earn their tokens. It falls short of a 5 because the 'Frameworks uteis' section re-explains AARRR, HEART, and the aha-moment concept Claude already knows, which could be trimmed to one line of when-to-use guidance.

Actionability

Guidance is fully concrete for an instruction-only skill: a copy-paste-ready naming convention with a good/bad/why table ("signup_completed" vs "Completed Signup"), a filled-in tracking-plan table template (event, trigger condition, properties, type, owner), concrete funnel numbers with drop annotations, a specific counter-metric example, and named anti-patterns. It matches anchor 5's 'specific examples cover the common cases'; per the scoring notes, absence of code is not penalized when the guidance is this actionable.

Workflow Clarity

There is an explicit validate-fix-retry feedback loop ("disparar a acao no app -> confirmar que o evento aparece no debugger ... Se nao aparecer, checar API key/env e disparar de novo") and a completion checklist ('Evidencia de Conclusao'), which exceeds anchor 4's 'most checkpoints present'. It is not a 5 because the process is organized topically (naming, formats, metric types) rather than as an explicitly sequenced procedure — the order from inputs to tracking plan to instrumentation to evidence is only implied by section ordering.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned with clear headers and an appropriate single-file overview structure. It is not a 5 because there are no bundle files at all (no references/, scripts/, assets/ exist), yet the body references external paths (`policies/execution.md`, `policies/handoffs.md`, `templates/analytics-plan.md`, `GLOBAL.md`) that do not resolve within this skill's bundle — minor organization gaps consistent with anchor 4. It is not a 3 because the structure itself is good and references are clearly signaled with concrete paths, not buried.

Specificity

The description enumerates concrete capabilities — "definicao de eventos, naming de tracking, funis, metricas de produto e instrumentacao analitica" — covering the full scope of the domain (event definition, tracking naming, funnels, product metrics, instrumentation). It matches the anchor 'Lists multiple specific concrete actions; comprehensive coverage'; it is not a 4 because there are no meaningful coverage gaps within the skill's stated scope.

Completeness

Both questions are explicitly answered: the 'what' is "Skill para definicao de eventos, naming de tracking, funis, metricas de produto e instrumentacao analitica" and the 'when' is an explicit "Use quando precisar medir valor entregue, ativacao, conversao, retencao e comportamento do usuario" followed by a concrete "Trigger em:" phrase list. This matches anchor 5 verbatim in structure; a 4 would require the 'when' to be less explicit, which it is not.

Trigger Term Quality

The trigger list is comprehensive and natural: "tracking", "analytics", "funil de conversao", "instrumentar evento", "tracking plan", "naming de evento", plus concrete tool names users would say verbatim ("PostHog", "Amplitude", "Mixpanel") and both Portuguese and English variants ("metrica de produto" / "data analytics"). Not a 4 because it includes the tool names and bilingual synonym coverage that anchor 5 requires.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (product event analytics) is clear and anchored by tool-specific triggers ("PostHog", "Amplitude", "Mixpanel") and product terms ("ativacao", "retencao", "tracking plan"), but generic triggers like "analytics" and "data analytics" create minor overlap risk with closely related skills the body itself distinguishes (observability, SEO/marketing attribution). Anchor 4 ('mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills') is the best fit — not 5 because the broad 'analytics'/'tracking' terms are not disambiguated from adjacent analytics domains.