Conciseness

The ~20-line body is lean and instructive throughout: it never explains concepts Claude already knows (signals, OnPush, inject()) and every line carries actionable content. This matches anchor 5 ('lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence; every token earns its place').

Actionability

Per-phase specifics are concrete ('.types.ts + .contracts.ts', 'src/modules/[name]/', 'WritableSignal + asReadonly()', 'input()/output()'), but there are no executable commands: 'Validate build/tsc/tests after each phase' names no actual commands, 'Validate conformance' is undefined, and '@migrator' is an undocumented external dependency. This fits anchor 3 ('some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details') rather than 4, where the gaps would be minor.

Workflow Clarity

Seven phases are clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints ('Validate build/tsc/tests after each phase', 'Ask for approval before each phase'), so the destructive/batch cap of 3 does not apply since validation is present. Not 5 because there is no error-recovery feedback loop (what to do when a phase's validation fails) and a minor inconsistency exists: the description says '6 phases' while the body lists Phase 0 through Phase 6.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, self-contained with no bundle files (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent), and organized into a clear '## Steps' section. Per the rubric's simple-skill guideline, this earns anchor 5 with well-organized sections alone.

Specificity

Names the domain ("complete module needs migration to the target architecture") and 1-2 process actions ("runs 6 phases with approval gates"), but never states what the migration actually does (no mention of services, signals, standalone components, or the framework involved). It matches anchor 3 rather than 4 because no specific capability actions are listed.

Completeness

Both parts are explicit: "runs 6 phases with approval gates" answers what, and "Use when a complete module needs migration to the target architecture" is an explicit when-clause. Not 5 because the what is thin — no concrete description of what the phases accomplish; not 3 because the when is explicit, not weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords like "module", "migration", and "target architecture" are present, but common natural variations are missing ("migrate to signals", "convert to standalone", "refactor module") and no framework or file-extension terms appear. This fits anchor 3 (some relevant keywords, missing synonyms) better than 4, since synonym coverage is absent rather than merely incomplete.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"complete module" and "target architecture" carve a mostly distinct niche with only minor overlap risk against hypothetical sibling skills (e.g., a component-level migration skill). Not 5 because "migration" and "module" are still broad words that lack highly distinct trigger phrases.