Conciseness

The body is lean — short bullet checklists and section headers with no concept explanations Claude already knows, and it defers detail to playbooks/policies rather than reproducing them, so every token earns its place. Not a 2 because there is no padded or unnecessary explanation to tighten.

Actionability

The delete-list section is concrete and actionable (5 named categories, "citar arquivo:linha", evidence requirement, human-confirmation carve-out), but the primary migration execution detail (the "10 passos" and commands) is deferred to an external playbook not present in the bundle, leaving the core task guidance framework-level. Not a 3 because fully executable, copy-paste-ready steps for the main task are not in the body; not a 1 because concrete actionable guidance is present for the delete-list workflow.

Workflow Clarity

Checklist Base and Evidencia de Conclusao provide a loose sequence and mention "validacao incremental por fase" and rollback/corte criteria, but the body lacks an explicit phased step sequence with validate→fix→retry checkpoints for a risky rollout operation. Not a 3 because explicit validation feedback loops are absent for the migration workflow (capped at 2 per the batch/risky-operations note); not a 1 because sequence and validation concepts are present.

Progressive Disclosure

References are clearly signaled via a playbook table and bulleted descriptions of playbooks/references files, showing good one-level-deep structure, but the referenced files (playbooks/, templates/migration-plan.md, policies/, GLOBAL.md) are not present in the review bundle, so navigation and content split cannot be verified. Not a 3 because the well-signaled structure is undermined by absent referenced files; not a 1 because the body is organized into clear sections rather than a monolithic wall of text.

Specificity

Names multiple concrete techniques and actions — "migracoes, modernizacao de legacy e refactors estruturais", "strangler pattern", "extracao incremental", "compatibilidade de transicao e rollout seguro" — rather than vague language, matching the anchor that lists several specific concrete actions. Not a 2 because it goes beyond naming only a domain and a couple of actions.

Completeness

It answers both what ("Skill para migracoes, modernizacao de legacy e refactors estruturais") and when ("Use quando precisar fazer upgrades grandes..." plus an explicit "Trigger em:" list), matching the anchor that clearly answers both what AND when with explicit triggers. Not a 2 because the when is explicit, not merely implied.

Trigger Term Quality

The explicit "Trigger em:" list gives broad coverage of natural phrases a user would say ("migracao de framework", "spring boot 2 para 3", "javax para jakarta", "migrar jdk 21", "openrewrite"), matching the anchor for good coverage of natural terms. Not a 2 because it includes many common variations rather than just a few relevant keywords.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche — large migrations and structural refactors distinct from the normal feature/bugfix flow — with specific triggers (Spring Boot 2→3, Jakarta, JDK 21) unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. Not a 2 because the triggers are specific enough to avoid overlap with general-purpose skills.