Conciseness

The body is a lean mapping table ('`@Input() prop` -> `readonly prop = input<T>()`', '`*ngFor` -> `@for (item of items; track item.id)`') plus three validation commands, with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows and no padding. Every token earns its place, matching the anchor 'Lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence'.

Actionability

The conversion mappings and validation commands ('npx tsc --noEmit', 'ng build', 'ng test --watch=false') are concrete and near copy-paste ready, but 'Apply composition pattern if there is prop drilling' and 'Decompose if > 200 lines' are high-level hints with no concrete how — 'minor gaps' per anchor 4 rather than the full executable coverage of anchor 5.

Workflow Clarity

A clear numbered sequence (analyze -> convert -> compose/decompose -> validate) with an explicit validation step of three concrete commands matches 'Clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps'. It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no error-recovery feedback loop (e.g., what to do when tsc or the build fails), though validation is present so no cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with well-organized sections and a single one-level-deep reference to 'docs/ARCHITECTURE.md section 5', which the rubric's simple-skill guidance says can score 5 with just well-organized sections and no external reference files needed.

Specificity

The description states only 'Use when a component needs migration to the target architecture or framework version' — it names the component-migration domain generically but lists no concrete action the skill performs, matching the anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'. It cannot score 3 because no 1-2 concrete actions (e.g., what the migration actually does) are stated, and it is not entirely vague abstract language like 'Helps with documents'.

Completeness

Only a 'when' clause ('Use when a component needs migration to the target architecture or framework version') is present, with no statement of what the skill does — the anchor 2 pattern ('Use when working with documents'). It does not reach anchor 3 because there is no clear 'what', and it is above anchor 1 because the 'when' clause is present and reasonably domain-specific.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords are present ('component', 'migration', 'architecture', 'framework version') but common natural variations are missing — a user would say 'Angular', 'standalone', 'signals', or 'upgrade', none of which appear. This matches 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms' rather than anchor 4's good coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Component' plus 'migration' anchors a recognizable niche, but with no framework named and 'target architecture or framework version' left undefined, the description would plausibly trigger for React, Vue, or Angular migration skills alike — 'Somewhat specific but could still overlap with similar skills'. It lacks the named-framework distinctiveness of anchor 4.