Conciseness

The body is efficient with concrete code and tables, but has minor redundancy: the file layout appears twice (the Architecture diagram and the Regeneration Safety table repeat the same five files) and 'Key Patterns' repeats the `client(ctx)` call already shown in the register example. Not 5 because these repetitions could be trimmed; not 3 because there is no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows.

Actionability

The register() example is complete, executable Rust including clap wiring, SDK client retrieval, block_on invocation, and output printing; build/test commands (`cargo build`, `RUST_LOG=debug acme-versioned <your-command>`) are concrete and copy-paste ready, covering the common case end-to-end. Not 4 because nothing is pseudocode or placeholder in the primary example.

Workflow Clarity

A clear sequence is present (edit custom.rs → use SDK clients/patterns → note inherited auth → verify regeneration safety → build & test), and the `.fernignore` protection is explicitly flagged. Not 5 because there is no explicit validation checkpoint or error-recovery loop (e.g., 'run cargo build to confirm the command compiles and appears in --help'); not 3 because the sequence is well defined and this is not a destructive or batch operation requiring a cap.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is self-contained with no bundle files and no nested references; all content (overview, architecture, steps, patterns, auth, regeneration, build) is appropriately inlined in well-organized sections with easy navigation. Per the rubric's simple-skill guidance, a self-contained skill with no need for external references and well-organized sections scores 5.

Specificity

Names the domain ('custom commands for the acme-versioned CLI') and one concrete action ('author custom commands... using the co-generated SDK'), but does not enumerate several concrete capabilities. Not 4 because only a single action is listed rather than 'several specific actions'; not 2 because the action given is concrete, not generic.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear ('author custom commands for the acme-versioned CLI using the co-generated SDK'), but the 'when' is entirely absent — there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the rubric guidelines. Not 2 because the 'what' is specific and unambiguous, not vague.

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like 'custom commands', 'CLI', and 'SDK' are relevant and plausible, but common variations a user would naturally say ('add a command', 'extend the CLI', 'new CLI subcommand') are missing. Not 4 because keyword coverage is limited to three terms with no synonyms or natural phrasing beyond them.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description is anchored to a unique project name ('acme-versioned CLI') and a distinctive mechanism ('co-generated SDK'), giving it a clear niche with minimal overlap risk against other skills. Matches the anchor-5 example's profile of specific, distinct triggers.