Conciseness

The body is lean with zero padding: every line is either a concrete file path, a specific guardrail, or an executable command. No concepts Claude already knows are explained. This matches anchor 5 (lean, every token earns its place) and is clearly above anchor 4, which expects some trimmable over-explanation.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: exact file globs ("src/mcp/tools/**", "manifests/tools/*.yaml"), copy-paste validation commands ("npm run typecheck", "npm test -- src/core/manifest/__tests__/schema.test.ts", "npx skill-check ..."), and nine concrete, individually checkable guardrails. Per the code-vs-instruction scoring note, the absence of code in an instruction-only skill is not penalized when guidance is this actionable.

Workflow Clarity

The sections form a coherent sequence (scope -> files to inspect -> guardrail checklist -> validation), with the guardrails acting as an explicit checklist and the validation section providing concrete verification commands. The skill is review-only and non-destructive, so the missing-feedback-loop cap does not apply; it matches the checklist-plus-validation shape of anchor 5.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is under 50 lines, needs no external reference files (none exist in the bundle), and is cleanly organized into four well-labeled sections. Per the rubric's simple-skill guidance, this earns a 5 with well-organized sections alone.

Specificity

The description names the domain and a single action ("reviewing MobileBuildMCP tool contract changes") and enumerates surfaces ("implementation, manifests, workflow membership, output schema metadata, and next-step templates"), but it does not list multiple distinct concrete actions like "verify manifest id matches filename" or "check outputSchema presence". This matches anchor 3 (domain plus 1-2 actions, not comprehensive) better than anchor 4, which requires several specific listed actions.

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit and strong ("Use when reviewing MobileBuildMCP tool contract changes..."), and a 'what' is embedded in that clause, so both are present. Not a 5 because the 'what' is not stated as a standalone capability statement, and not a 3 because the 'when' is fully explicit rather than weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms a developer would say are present: "reviewing", "MobileBuildMCP", "tool contract", "manifests", "workflow membership". It falls short of anchor 5 because common phrasings like "adding a new tool", "tool registration", or file extensions are missing. It is clearly above anchor 3, which expects missing common variations rather than good coverage with minor gaps.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description is scoped to a single named project's tool contract review with distinct trigger surfaces, occupying a clear niche with minimal overlap risk against generic review skills. It matches anchor 5 (clear niche with distinct triggers).