Conciseness

The ~400-line body contains several padded or redundant sections: the "Control Primitives Map by IDE" table and the "Subagent-Specific Paths" table present the identical path information twice; "About Subagents" explains the subagent concept Claude already knows; and four complete example agent definitions (~130 lines) plus a "Comparison with Skills" section are inlined wholesale. Not score 3 because the redundancy is substantial and structural, not occasional over-explanation; not score 1 because the content stays on-task with no filler prose about libraries or basics.

Actionability

Guidance is copy-paste ready throughout: exact frontmatter YAML blocks per IDE, concrete `mkdir -p .cursor/agents && touch ...` commands, good/bad description examples, full agent templates, and a verification checklist. Not score 4 because the examples cover the common cases (code-reviewer, debugger, data-scientist, docs) and the commands are directly executable with no gaps.

Workflow Clarity

The five-phase workflow (Discovery → Design → Implementation → Verification → Iterate) is clearly sequenced, with an explicit verification checklist ("Test the subagent: 'Use the my-agent subagent to [task]'") and a built-in feedback loop ("Use on real tasks → notice struggles → update → test again"). Not score 4 because validation checkpoints and the error-recovery loop are both explicit, not implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

Section headers are clear and consistent, but there are no references/scripts/assets files at all, and large content that belongs in separate files — the four full example agent definitions and the duplicated path tables — is inlined in SKILL.md. Not score 4 because well over a hundred lines of example content should be split into a one-level-deep references file; not score 2 because the document is well-sectioned and navigable, not a wall of text with buried references.

Specificity

"Guide for creating effective Subagents (custom agent definitions)" names the domain and one core action (creating subagents), but the remaining phrases ("set up task-specific agents, configure code reviewers, debuggers, or domain-specific assistants") read as trigger scenarios rather than additional concrete capabilities. Not score 4 because it does not list several specific actions (contrast the anchor's "Extracts text, fills forms, converts pages to images"); not score 2 because the domain is precisely named and the action is concrete.

Completeness

The "when" is explicit and multi-scenario ("Use when users want to create a new subagent, set up task-specific agents, configure code reviewers, debuggers, or domain-specific assistants"), and a "what" is present ("Guide for creating effective Subagents"). Not score 5 because the "what" is generic — "Guide for creating effective" does not state concrete capabilities the way the anchor-5 example does ("Extract text and tables from PDF files, fill forms, merge documents"). Not score 3 because both what and when are present, with the when explicitly stated.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases users would say are present: "create a new subagent", "set up task-specific agents", "configure code reviewers, debuggers", plus IDE names "Cursor, OpenCode". Not score 5 because common synonyms are missing — notably "Claude Code" is omitted from the IDE list even though the body covers it, and there are no path/extension hooks like ".claude/agents". Not score 3 because keyword coverage across the request space (create/set up/configure, multiple agent types) is good.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The subagent-creation niche is distinct and trigger terms ("create a new subagent", named IDEs) are unlikely to fire unrelated skills. Not score 5 because "set up task-specific agents" and "configure code reviewers, debuggers, or domain-specific assistants" have minor overlap risk with general agent-configuration or prompt-engineering skills. Not score 3 because the core trigger language is specific to subagents, not merely "somewhat specific".