Conciseness

The core is lean — a compact executable verify function with purposeful comments, a dense event table, and an exact env-var snippet — with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Minor over-trimming candidates: the 7-entry 'Related Skills' list (one promotional) and the attribution block. Not 5 because those sections add tokens that don't serve the task; not 3 because padding is minor, not 'some unnecessary explanation'.

Actionability

The verifyBridgeSignature function is complete and copy-paste executable (header parsing with base64-padding-safe splitting, replay tolerance, the double-hash quirk, try/catch, failure semantics 'Return a non-2xx (400)'), plus an exact env-var format and a runnable tunnel command. Not 4 because the common case is fully covered with no missing key details.

Workflow Clarity

The verification sequence has explicit validation checkpoints (timestamp replay guard, signature verify in try/catch) and an explicit error-recovery feedback loop ('Return a non-2xx (400) on failure so Bridge retries'), with the full setup flow one reference away. Not 4 because validation and failure handling are explicit, matching the anchor-5 pattern of validate → act → handle failure.

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure: core verification inline, three real one-level-deep references (overview.md, setup.md, verification.md) each signaled with a description, and details correctly split out. However, the body links examples/express/, examples/nextjs/, and examples/fastapi/ which do not exist in the bundle — dangling references. Not 5 because of those broken example links; not 3 because content placement and reference signaling are otherwise excellent.

Specificity

Explicit concrete actions — 'Receive and verify', 'setting up Bridge webhook handlers', 'debugging RSA signature verification of the X-Webhook-Signature header', 'handling stablecoin/fiat events' — but webhook endpoint creation/enabling via the API (a use case the body covers) is not named, so coverage has minor gaps. Not 5 because the anchor-5 example enumerates the full action surface; not 3 because several specific actions are listed beyond just naming the domain.

Completeness

Clearly answers both: what ('Receive and verify Bridge (bridge.xyz) webhooks') and when ('Use when setting up..., debugging..., or handling...') with concrete trigger phrases. Not 4 because the 'when' clause is fully explicit and specific, matching the anchor-5 example structure.

Trigger Term Quality

Comprehensive natural terms including brand synonyms ('Bridge', 'bridge.xyz'), 'webhook', 'X-Webhook-Signature', 'RSA signature verification', and four concrete event names (customer.updated, kyc_link.updated, transfer.updated, virtual_account.activity) users would actually mention. Not 4 because no common variation is missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche — Bridge (bridge.xyz) webhooks specifically — with distinct branded triggers (X-Webhook-Signature, Bridge event names) that no sibling webhook skill (Stripe, PayPal, etc.) would match. Not 4 because overlap risk is minimal given the provider-specific qualifier throughout.