Conciseness

The ~30-line ASCII box diagram duplicates what a compact numbered list would convey in a third of the tokens, and the RecoveryStrategy enum block repeats strategy information already shown in the Error Categories table. Mostly efficient otherwise — no explanations of concepts Claude already knows — so anchor 3 fits better than the padded anchor 2 or the minor-trim anchor 4.

Actionability

Quick start provides concrete executable Python ('ErrorRecoverer(project_dir)', 'result = await recoverer.handle_error(error, context)', '@recoverer.with_recovery') plus a specific category-to-strategy table. Minor gaps keep it at 4: 'project_dir' and 'context' are never defined and the decorator example omits setup; not 5 because snippets are not fully copy-paste ready; not 3 because the code is real and executable, not pseudocode.

Workflow Clarity

The DETECT → CLASSIFY → STRATEGIZE → RECOVER → ESCALATE sequence is clearly ordered, includes 'Verify recovery success' as a checkpoint and an explicit failure path ('Rollback to checkpoint... Signal for human intervention'), which is a feedback loop. Not 5 because verification exists only as one-line diagram entries with no detail on criteria or how verification is performed; not 3 because checkpoints are present, not absent.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a well-organized overview with clearly signaled one-level references and scripts sections, but 'references/RECOVERY-STRATEGIES.md' is cited and does not exist in the bundle (only ERROR-CATEGORIES.md is present; all four listed scripts do exist), so navigation fails for a key topic. Anchor 3 fits: good structure undermined by a broken reference is more than the 'minor organization gaps' of anchor 4.

Specificity

"error detection and recovery" names the domain plus two concrete actions, but the what-clause is thin (classification, rollback, escalation absent) and "Intelligent" is buzzword padding. Not 4 because it lacks the several-specific-actions coverage of anchor 4; not 2 because two concrete actions are explicitly named, unlike 'Processes PDF files'.

Completeness

Explicitly answers what ("Intelligent error detection and recovery for autonomous coding") and when ("Use when handling errors, implementing retry logic, recovering from failures, or managing exception handling") with four concrete trigger phrases, matching the anchor-5 pattern. Anchor 4 does not fit because the when-clause is specific and multi-trigger, not a single broad condition.

Trigger Term Quality

The when-clause includes natural phrases users would say: "handling errors", "implementing retry logic", "recovering from failures", "managing exception handling". Not 5 because common synonyms like crash, stack trace, debug, or test failure are missing; not 3 because multiple natural terms are present rather than one generic keyword.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"handling errors" and "exception handling" are broad triggers that would also fire a debugging or test-fixing skill; "for autonomous coding" narrows the domain only somewhat. Somewhat specific (retry/recovery niche) but real overlap risk with closely adjacent skills, fitting anchor 3 rather than the minor-overlap anchor 4.