Conciseness

The body is dense and telegraphic, assumes competence (no primers on Petri nets, TypeScript, or React) and nearly every sentence carries non-obvious domain rules. The main trimmable redundancy is that lambda/kernel availability and empty-code rules are stated twice — once in the Extensions bullets ('Leave kernel code empty when the transition has no coloured output places') and again nearly verbatim in the Code surfaces entries.

Actionability

Every common code surface has a copy-paste-ready example ('return input.Queue[0].priority > parameters.threshold;', 'return tokens.map(({ level }) => ({ level: -level * parameters.decay_rate }));'), plus exact idioms (Array.from instead of loops), an exact place-name regex, and exact tool flags (askUserFirst: false only when the net was empty). Deferring payload shapes to the mounted schemas is explicitly justified ('The mounted schemas, not this prose, govern exact payload fields').

Workflow Clarity

The workflow is fully sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: read before the first change, fragments in dependency order, a literal acceptance checklist after each step, a compile-validate feedback loop ('call getNetCompilationErrors once for the whole step, and send every repair it calls for in one further step'), and error-recovery rules ('Never repeat a change that succeeded or may have').

Progressive Disclosure

A dedicated Routing section clearly signals three real, one-level-deep references (references/docs.md, examples.md, experiments.md — all verified present, none referencing further files), each with a stated purpose and when-to-read condition. The daily-use operational core stays inline and appropriately split from the worked example, user-guide pages, and experiment details.

Specificity

The what-clause ('Using the Petrinaut tools and writing net code') is brief, but the trigger list enumerates six concrete code surfaces (lambda, kernel, dynamics, visualizer, metric, scenario) plus experiments and UI questions. Several specific items are named, though what the tools themselves do (reading/changing nets) is left generic, so it sits above anchor 3 but short of comprehensive anchor 5.

Completeness

Both parts are explicit: what ('Using the Petrinaut tools and writing net code') and a detailed when with four concrete trigger scenarios ('Use before the first net change, before writing lambda, kernel, dynamics, visualizer, metric or scenario code, before drafting or creating an experiment, and when the USER asks how something in the Petrinaut UI works'). This mirrors the anchor 5 example structure.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural domain terms a Petrinaut user would actually say — 'net change', 'lambda', 'kernel', 'scenario', 'metric', 'experiment', 'Petrinaut UI' — are all present. Common variations users might say (places, transitions, tokens, simulation) are missing, so it falls short of the comprehensive synonym coverage of anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Petrinaut' is a uniquely named domain and every trigger is domain-specific (net changes, the enumerated code types, the Petrinaut UI), giving a clear niche with minimal conflict risk against other skills.