Conciseness

The body is mostly directive lists and tables, but it pads with explanations of concepts Claude already knows — the Guardrails section defines DRY ("Business logic in Service, data access logic in Repository"), SOLID ("Classes and functions should have one responsibility"), and "KISS: Keep it simple and clear" — and the router→service→repository→models pattern is stated twice (Architecture Pattern and Core Rule 1), while the Scheduling meta-section restates scope several times. Anchor 3 rather than 2 because the bulk is imperative guidance, not tutorial prose.

Actionability

There is concrete policy ("JWT + Argon2id for auth", "Parameterized queries only", explicit layer responsibilities, named Serena tools like `find_file` and `search_for_pattern`), but no code and no runnable commands — verification is deferred to "the project's discovered verification commands" and to resource files absent from the bundle, so key execution details are missing. This sits at anchor 3 ('some concrete guidance but incomplete') rather than 4.

Workflow Clarity

The PREPARE→ACQUIRE→ACT→VERIFY→FINALIZE scene sequence is clear, with a dedicated VERIFY stage ("Run relevant lint, type, test, migration, and checklist commands"), an explicit feedback loop ("If verification fails, fix root cause before handoff"), and a pre-handoff checklist reference. It falls short of anchor 5 because the validation steps are not executable — no actual commands are given and the referenced checklist file is not in the bundle.

Progressive Disclosure

References are clearly signaled and one level deep (References section, Dependencies, Stack-Specific Reference), but scored against the actual bundle: no referenced file exists — `resources/execution-protocol.md`, `resources/checklist.md`, `resources/orm-reference.md`, `resources/error-playbook.md`, `../_shared/core/*.md`, and `stack/stack.yaml` are all dangling. Good signaling over a broken structure lands at anchor 3.

Specificity

"Implement server APIs, authentication, and application data access" names three areas, but they read as domain labels rather than concrete operations — the skill's actual scope (migrations, background jobs, business logic, repositories) is absent. This matches anchor 3 ('1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive') better than anchor 4, whose examples list finer-grained actions like 'fills forms, converts pages to images'.

Completeness

The "what" is clear ("Implement server APIs, authentication, and application data access") but the "when" is entirely absent — there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not anchor 2 because the "what" is specific, not vague.

Trigger Term Quality

"server APIs", "authentication", and "application data access" are natural terms users would say, but common trigger phrasings — "backend", "endpoint", "REST", "GraphQL", "migration", "database" — are missing even though the body's intent-signature section lists them. Some relevant keywords with missing variations, matching anchor 3.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The boundary sentence "Schema modeling and query tuning use oma-db" explicitly separates the closest sibling skill, giving a clear backend niche. It falls short of anchor 5 because "application data access" itself brushes against oma-db territory and no other distinct trigger phrases are given to fully disambiguate.