Conciseness

The body is dense with project-specific rules ("Use `CliIdArg` for arguments that reference existing Git objects", "`run` doesn't print its final output") and explains nothing Claude already knows — no primer on clap, git, or serialization. Minor trimming is possible: two adjacent notes both restate what belongs in `run()` ("Commit counts, diffs, statistics, branch details... belong in `run()`" followed by "State derivable from those identifiers... belongs in `run()`"), fitting anchor 4 rather than 5.

Actionability

Concrete, near-executable guidance dominates: full `Platform` struct code, the dispatch match arm with real APIs (`IntermediateChannel`, `emit_metrics`, `print_cli_output`), and specific rules like "Bad user input errors use `bad_input(...)`, optionally with `.arg_name()`". It falls short of anchor 5 because the command-implementation example uses `// ...` placeholders and an unannotated code fence, but it is well above anchor 3 since the args and dispatch examples are complete and runnable in shape.

Workflow Clarity

The workflow is clearly sequenced in the order the work must happen — Arguments ("Arguments live in `crates/but/src/args`") → Handling ("Add a match arm to `crates/but/src/lib.rs`") → Implementing ("In `crates/but/src/command/legacy/commit3.rs`") — each keyed to a concrete file path. This is not a destructive or batch operation, so the validation cap does not apply, but there is also no compile/verify checkpoint (e.g. `cargo check` or confirming `ERROR_EXAMPLES` registration), keeping it at anchor 4 rather than 5.

Progressive Disclosure

There are no bundle files (no references/, scripts/, or assets/), and the body is organized into clear sections with a final "More examples" list pointing one level deep to real repo files (`crates/but/src/command/legacy/commit.rs` etc.), which is well signaled. All ~250 lines of guidance live inline in a single file; the content is cohesive but a few of the detailed rule lists could be split out, matching anchor 4's 'most content is appropriately placed; minor organization gaps' rather than anchor 5.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("CLI command (`but` commands)") and a concrete location ("`crates/but/src`") but states only the action of adding or modifying — it never enumerates what the skill actually provides (argument conventions, resolve/run structure, output handling). This matches 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'; it is not 4 because no list of specific capabilities is given, and not 2 because the domain and path are concrete rather than generic.

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit and precise ("Use when adding or modifying CLI command (`but` commands) under `crates/but/src`"), but no 'what' is stated — the description never says the skill provides the structural conventions for these commands, and per the judging guidelines only explicitly stated content is scored. This matches 'only "when" is present without "what"' (anchor 2); anchor 3 is not awarded because it requires a clear 'what'.

Trigger Term Quality

Terms a contributor would naturally say are present ("CLI command", "but commands", "`crates/but/src`"), but common variations such as "subcommand", "clap", "arguments", or "flags" are missing. This fits 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'; it falls short of 4 because keyword coverage is thin rather than good-with-a-few-gaps.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The scope is one binary's commands at one specific path ("`but` commands) under `crates/but/src`"), a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk with other skills. This matches anchor 5.