Conciseness

The body is lean and dense: a file reference with specific sections ("docs/ARCHITECTURE.md sections 2, 3 and 4"), a compact directory tree, terse steps, and a validation command. There is no explanation of concepts Claude already knows and nothing that could be trimmed — matching 'every token earns its place'.

Actionability

There is concrete guidance (specific paths, directory tree, `nuxi typecheck && nuxi build`, user questions), but the core creation work — "Types + contracts + adapter + service (using $fetch)" — is delegated to `@builder` with no example or specification of what these artifacts look like, and the index.ts snippet is only comments. These are missing key details rather than the minor gaps of level 4.

Workflow Clarity

A clear numbered sequence exists and ends with a validation checkpoint (`nuxi typecheck && nuxi build`), but there is no error-recovery loop (what to do when validation fails) and validation is deferred to the very end of a batch multi-file generation. Per the batch-operation feedback-loop cap, it cannot exceed 3.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, single-purpose, and well-organized with a clean step structure; it appropriately defers architectural detail to the external docs/ARCHITECTURE.md rather than inlining it. Per the simple-skill guideline, this earns a 5 without bundle files.

Specificity

The description names the domain and a single action — "creating a new feature module" — and enumerates the layers involved ("service, adapter, types, state, components, and tests"), but it lists only one concrete action rather than the several specific actions of the level-4 anchor. It is more concrete than the generic level-2 anchor, which names a domain with minimal actions.

Completeness

An explicit "Use when..." clause is present (avoiding the level-3 cap), and the 'what' — building a module with all layers — is stated. However, the 'what' is embedded in and nearly tautological with the 'when' clause, so it falls short of the level-5 anchor's clearly distinct and concrete what-and-when pairing.

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when creating a new feature module" is a natural phrase a user would say, but coverage stops there: no synonyms or variations ("scaffold", "add a feature", "new module", "new page") are present, and the layer names (adapter, state) read as architectural jargon rather than user triggers. This matches 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The specific layer stack ("service, adapter, types, state, components") carves out a clear project-specific niche with low conflict risk against general skills. It does not fully reach level 5 because terms like "components" and "tests" leave minor overlap risk with generic scaffolding or code-generation skills.