The body is dense (~265 lines) of mostly concrete reference material rather than explanation of known concepts, but sections like the exhaustive .cursorignore extension list and 'Enterprise Considerations' prose could be tightened. Not score 1 because it avoids explaining basics Claude already knows; not score 3 because the volume exceeds a lean overview and some content is padding.

It provides copy-paste-ready, fully concrete guidance: full .cursor/rules/*.mdc file contents, complete .cursorignore and .cursorindexingignore listings, and directory trees. Not score 2 because these are real, executable templates rather than pseudocode or vague direction.

Content is organized by topic ('Layer 1-4' rules, Indexing Strategy, Monorepo) but there is no multi-step process with validation checkpoints — it is a reference catalog, not a sequenced workflow. Not score 1 because the layered organization gives implicit ordering; not score 3 because no explicit sequence or feedback/validation steps are present.

Seven bundle files exist under references/ (e.g. monorepo-architecture.md, team-configuration.md, configuration-file-architecture.md) whose topics are instead rendered inline in the body, and the body never links to any of them. Not score 1 because the body has clear section headers rather than being an unstructured wall; not score 3 because references are present but not signaled and content that should be separate is inline (anchor 2).

It names the domain ('Cursor IDE projects') and four covered areas ('directory structure, rules organization, indexing strategy, and team configuration patterns'), but these are topics/noun phrases rather than the concrete verbs the score-3 anchor calls for (cf. 'Extract text... fill forms, merge documents'). Not score 1 because the areas are specific to the domain; not score 3 because no concrete actions are listed.

It states both what ('Reference architecture for Cursor IDE projects: directory structure, rules organization, indexing strategy, and team configuration patterns') and when ('Triggers on ...'). The explicit 'Triggers on' clause satisfies the 'when' requirement, so it is not capped at 2.

'Triggers on "cursor architecture", "cursor project structure", "cursor best practices", "cursor file structure"' gives good coverage of natural phrases a user would actually say. Not score 2 because these are common natural variations, not jargon; the set is reasonably comprehensive for the niche.

'Cursor IDE projects' is a clear niche with distinct trigger phrases, making it unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. Not score 2 because the triggers are specific to a single tool rather than overlapping generic terms like 'code and documents'.