Conciseness

The body is lean and telegraphic and assumes Claude's competence throughout — no Petri-net, React, or TypeScript primers, and every line carries host-contract knowledge Claude cannot infer. The one trimmable redundancy is that lambda availability rules appear twice (Extensions section: 'Stochastic transition lambdas... require extensions.stochasticity' vs Code surfaces: 'Available when stochasticity is enabled OR when colours are enabled...'), which fits anchor 4's 'minor instances that could be trimmed' rather than anchor 5's 'every token earns its place'.

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: named tools (readNetOutline, getNetCompilationErrors, applyAutoLayout, setNetTitle, updatePlace), copy-paste-ready one-liners for every code surface ('return input.Queue[0].priority > parameters.threshold;'), the exact place-name regex '^[A-Z][a-zA-Z]*\d*$', and the concrete loop replacement 'Array.from({ length: n }, (_, index) => ({ ... }))'. Specific examples cover the common cases, matching anchor 5.

Workflow Clarity

Multi-step processes are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: read before the first change, fragments in dependency order (types/parameters/equations, then places/transitions, then arcs), an after-step acceptance checklist ('netAfterChanges contains each accepted element... arc weights are positive'), the getNetCompilationErrors validation loop with a single repair step, and finishing steps for title and layout. Failure handling is explicit ('On a failure, a no-op or an unknown outcome, inspect the result... submit only the correction'), matching anchor 5's feedback loops.

Progressive Disclosure

A Routing section clearly signals when to read each of three real, one-level-deep reference files (docs.md for user-guide pages, examples.md for the worked example, experiments.md for experiment fields and limits), verified against the actual bundle with no nested references. Core contracts stay inline while examples and experiment detail are externalized, matching anchor 5's 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references'.

Specificity

Enumerates concrete actions ('writing lambda, kernel, dynamics, visualizer, metric or scenario code', 'drafting or creating an experiment'), but 'Using the Petrinaut tools' is generic and the capabilities the tools actually deliver (building, editing, validating nets) are left unstated. This matches the 'several specific actions; minor gaps in coverage' anchor rather than the comprehensive anchor 5.

Completeness

Both 'what' and 'when' are present, with the 'when' unusually explicit ('Use before the first net change... and when the USER asks how something in the Petrinaut UI works'). The 'what' ('Using the Petrinaut tools and writing net code') is stated but does not describe what is accomplished with the tools, so it falls short of anchor 5's 'clearly and explicitly answers both' while exceeding anchor 3 (which requires a missing or weakly implied 'when').

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage ('net change', 'experiment', 'lambda', 'Petrinaut UI', 'drafting or creating') that users of this domain would say, but misses common variations a user might naturally use such as 'place', 'transition', 'token', or 'simulation'. Anchor 5 requires comprehensive coverage including synonyms, so this fits anchor 4 with a few natural terms missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Petrinaut' is a uniquely named domain and every trigger ('net change', 'lambda', 'kernel', 'dynamics', 'visualizer', 'metric', 'scenario' code, 'experiment') is scoped to it, giving a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk.