Conciseness

The body is efficient: short principle bullets, copy-paste search queries, and a compact vetting table, with no padding explaining concepts Claude already knows. It is not a 5 because the two large placeholder markdown output templates (Phase 5 and 'If No Good Examples') are verbose and could be trimmed or factored out, and not a 3 because the surrounding material is genuinely lean rather than merely 'mostly efficient'.

Actionability

Guidance is concrete and executable throughout — copy-paste-ready `code_search`/`search` query templates, numeric recency thresholds (<6 / 6-12 / 12+ months), explicit anti-pattern signals, and a fill-in output template covering common cases. It is not a 4 because the commands and criteria are specific rather than having only minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced 5-phase process (Search → Vary → Document → Vet → Present) with an explicit validation checkpoint in Phase 4 (the vetting table and reject/warn signals act as a checklist) and an error-recovery branch ('If No Good Examples Found'). Because validation is present, the batch-operation cap does not apply; it is not a 4 because checkpoints and feedback handling are explicit rather than minor-gap.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is a single well-organized file with clear section headers, no nested references, and no bundle files to misroute — good structure and easy navigation. It is not a 5 because at ~130 lines the two sizable output templates could arguably live in separate reference files, and not a 3 because the organization is clean with no buried or poorly signaled references.

Specificity

The description names a clear domain ('an API, library, or code pattern across internal repositories') and one concrete action ('Find usage examples'), but offers only that single action rather than a comprehensive set, matching the '1-2 concrete actions' anchor. It is not a 4 because there are not several specific actions listed, and not a 2 because the action is concrete rather than minimal or generic.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both 'what' ('Find usage examples of an API, library, or code pattern across internal repositories') and 'when' with concrete trigger phrasing ('use when looking for how other teams use an internal API, library, or pattern before implementing something new'). It mirrors the rubric's 5-anchor example structure, so it is not a 4 where the 'when' is only weakly specified.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases a user would say appear — 'usage examples', 'how other teams use', 'API', 'library', 'pattern', 'before implementing something new' — giving good keyword coverage. It is not a 5 because it lacks synonyms and file/extension-style variants, and not a 3 because the terms go beyond bare keywords to genuinely natural phrasing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'internal repositories / how other teams use / before implementing something new' framing carves a mostly distinct niche with minimal conflict risk against unrelated skills. It is not a 5 because of some overlap risk with generic code-search skills, and not a 3 because the trigger is specific rather than merely 'somewhat specific'.