Conciseness

The prose is lean and doesn't explain concepts Claude already knows, but the ~25-line ASCII box diagram ("CHECKPOINT WORKFLOW") purely restates the create/rollback steps in decorative box-drawing characters — a substantial block that could be a five-line list. That is more than the 'minor instances' of anchor 4, fitting anchor 3 ('mostly efficient but... could be tightened').

Actionability

The Quick Start gives concrete, mostly executable code — `manager = CheckpointManager(project_dir)`, `await manager.create_checkpoint(...)`, `await manager.rollback(checkpoint.id)` — plus a concrete checkpoint JSON schema. Minor gaps remain: `project_dir` is never defined or sourced, and the four listed scripts get only one-line descriptions with no invocation examples. Not anchor 5 ('copy-paste ready, covers common cases') because of those gaps; better than anchor 3's pseudocode.

Workflow Clarity

The create → risky operation → rollback sequence is clear, including a failure branch, but the workflow involves destructive operations (git reset, restoring state) with no validation or verification steps — no check that the checkpoint is intact before reset, no verification that rollback succeeded. Per the rubric's guideline, missing validation in destructive workflows caps this at 3, which the clear sequence otherwise supports.

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is good on paper — a References section with one-level-deep pointers and a Scripts section — but both referenced files (`references/CHECKPOINT-STRATEGY.md`, `references/ROLLBACK-PROCEDURES.md`) do not exist in the bundle; the pointers are clearly signaled yet broken, so navigation fails. This sits between anchor 2's misplacement/buried references and anchor 4's appropriately placed, working references.

Specificity

The description names the domain and two concrete actions — "State snapshots and rollback" — but stops there; it doesn't enumerate the fuller capability set (create, restore, prune checkpoints). This matches anchor 3 ('names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive') better than anchor 4, which expects several listed specific actions with only minor gaps.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the "what" ("State snapshots and rollback for safe experimentation") and an explicit "Use when..." clause with four concrete trigger phrases. This mirrors anchor 5's model example structurally; it is not anchor 4 because the "when" is already explicit and specific, not merely present.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases are present — "creating checkpoints", "rolling back changes", "managing recovery points" — which users would plausibly say. Common synonyms like "revert", "undo", "restore", or "save state" are missing, matching anchor 4 ('good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing') rather than anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The checkpoint/rollback/recovery-point niche is mostly distinct with clear triggers, but there is minor overlap risk with closely related skills (git versioning, backup, or undo-type skills). Anchor 4 ('mostly distinct; minor overlap risk') fits better than anchor 5, since terms like "rollback" and "snapshots" are shared vocabulary with those adjacent domains.