Conciseness

The body is tight and assumes Claude's competence — a file-layout diagram, a registration code block, and a regeneration table with no padding or explanations of known concepts. It falls short of 5 only through minor redundancy: the 'Key Patterns' section repeats snippets already shown in the registration example, and the 'Available SDK Clients' section is a placeholder that spends tokens saying nothing.

Actionability

The registration snippet and build/test commands are concrete and executable, covering the main path. It is not 5 because the 'Available SDK Clients' section promises a list of sub-clients and then delivers none ("(Sub-clients are derived from the API spec at generation time.)"), leaving a real gap in the most important reference material.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence — edit custom.rs, use the SDK patterns, rebuild, run the command — is clear, and the 'Build & Test' section supplies verification checkpoints (cargo build, running the command, RUST_LOG=debug for debugging). Not 5 because the numbered steps conflate workflow actions with reference sections (steps 2 and 3 are not really sequential steps), and there is no guidance for handling build failures.

Progressive Disclosure

As a single self-contained file (~100 lines) with well-organized sections (Overview, Architecture, Adding a Command, Regeneration Safety, Build & Test) and no bundle files, the structure is good and navigation is easy. Not 5 because the 'Available SDK Clients' section is an empty stub where a pointer to the SDK crate's surface (or a references file) is clearly needed.

Specificity

The description names its domain ("custom commands for the allof-composition CLI") and one concrete action ("author custom commands ... using the co-generated SDK"), which matches the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions' anchor. It is not score 4 because no several specific actions are listed, and not score 2 because the actions named are concrete rather than generic.

Completeness

It clearly answers 'what' (authoring custom commands for this CLI with the SDK) but has no 'Use when...' clause or any trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not 4 because 'when' is entirely absent rather than merely weak; not 2 because the 'what' is clear, not vague.

Trigger Term Quality

Terms like "custom commands", "CLI", and "SDK" are relevant keywords a user might say, but common variations ("add command", "extend the CLI", "new subcommand") are missing. This sits squarely on the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms' anchor, below 4's 'good keyword coverage' and above 2's 'one or two generic keywords'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description is scoped to a uniquely named tool ("allof-composition CLI", "co-generated SDK"), giving it a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk with other skills. It matches the top anchor exactly.