Conciseness

The ~26-line body is dense with project-specific invariants Claude could not know otherwise ('Account tokens, scoped native tokens and product workload credentials are distinct', 'Download failure must not resubmit paid work') and assumes full competence — no generic concepts are explained and every token earns its place. It matches the 'lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence' anchor exactly, so 4 or lower would be unjustified.

Actionability

Concrete anchors exist — specific paths (`editor/lib/ai/`), named references (`GRIDA-SEC-006`, `../platform-consumers/SKILL.md`), a named audience (`gg:ai` native audience), and test constraints ('focused no-dotenv unit/API tests and editor TypeScript') — but there is no executable artifact: no commands to run, no test invocation, no example DTO or token shape. This matches 'some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details'; it is not 4 because nothing in the body is copy-paste runnable, and not 2 because the named files, markers, and constraints are specific enough to act on.

Workflow Clarity

A rough sequence is implicit — read the referenced adapter and docs, apply the constraints, verify with unit tests and the fixture-based SDK lane — but it is never laid out as steps, and the test guidance is stated as a rule ('Use focused no-dotenv unit/API tests') rather than a validation checkpoint with an error-recovery path. That matches 'sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit'; no destructive/batch cap applies, and it is not 4 because the verify step is not integrated into any explicit ordering.

Progressive Disclosure

The short body appropriately stays an overview and its pointers are one level deep and clearly signaled (named section `GRIDA-SEC-006` in a linked SECURITY.md, a sibling skill link, and the public contract URL). It is not 5 because there are no section headers separating context, constraints, and verification, and the relative links (`../platform-consumers/SKILL.md`, `../../../SECURITY.md`) do not resolve from the skill's own directory — they depend on repo layout, and no local bundle files exist to back them.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("product consumer, scoped native AI tokens, installed gg provider and Desktop integration") but the only verb is the generic "Work on" — it lists areas rather than concrete actions, matching the 'names the domain but actions are minimal or generic' anchor. It does not reach 3 because no specific action (implement adapters, persist results, migrate consumers) is stated; it is not 1 because the domain nouns are concrete and narrowly scoped.

Completeness

Both parts are present: the 'what' is the scoped consumer/token/provider/Desktop surface, and an explicit trigger clause exists — "Use for product execution adapters, not standalone Gateway service implementation or billing policy" — which also delineates the negative boundary. It does not reach 5 because the 'when' is abstract ('product execution adapters' rather than concrete trigger phrases like 'touching editor/lib/ai/ or the gg provider'), and it is above 3 because explicit 'Use for' guidance is present rather than merely implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant domain keywords are present ("Grida's Gateway", "gg provider", "Desktop integration", "product execution adapters") that a user on this codebase would plausibly say, but there are no natural variations, synonyms, or file-path triggers (e.g., `editor/lib/ai/`, `gg:ai`), matching 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'. It is above 2 because several genuinely project-specific terms appear, and below 4 because the phrasing stays at the jargon level rather than the phrases a user would naturally type.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear and product-specific with an explicit exclusion ("not standalone Gateway service implementation or billing policy"), which strongly disambiguates from a neighboring Gateway-service or billing skill. It stays at 4 rather than 5 because the shared trigger terms ("Grida Gateway", tokens, provider) still create minor overlap risk with that closely related service-side skill — the disambiguation relies on the reader parsing the negative clause.