Conciseness

The body is dense operational guidance with no padding about concepts Claude already knows (it never explains what LaunchDarkly or an SDK is), and defers per-SDK snippets to references with explicit justification ('using the wrong snippet ... will mislead you'). It sits at anchor 4 rather than 5 because of noticeable repetition — the dual-SDK warning is restated in the intro, Step 1, and Step 3, and 'STOP. Do not write the question as text' plus the .gitignore check each appear multiple times where one statement would do.

Actionability

Concrete, copy-paste-ready specifics abound: the exact MCP call 'get-environments({ request: { projectKey: "PROJECT_KEY" } })', full structured-question text with all four options, per-bundler env-var names (REACT_APP_/VITE_/NEXT_PUBLIC_LAUNCHDARKLY_CLIENT_SIDE_ID), and exact dashboard URL templates. It is not a 5 because the core deliverable — the SDK init code and install commands — is delegated to external recipe files rather than given inline, which is justified but still leaves the central task executable only via indirection.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1–4 are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: lockfile/manifest verification after install, blocking decision points D7/D8 with mandated STOPs, waiting for user confirmation of secret placement before Step 3, and Step 4's compile gate with 'Fix any import errors ... Do not proceed to the next step if the code doesn't compile'. This matches the anchor-5 example (validate → fix → retry, only-when-valid proceed) closely.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill keeps per-SDK detail out of the body and points to clearly signaled, one-level-deep references with named anchors ('[SDK recipes](../../references/sdk/recipes.md)', 'snippets/', 'observability-plugin.md', and sibling skills ../plan, ../run, ../detect). It is a 4 rather than 5 because Step 2's option-by-option secret-handling detail (~80 lines: four option branches, key-fetching guidance, two env-var tables, the .env write procedure) is inlined where a reference file would fit the pattern the rest of the skill follows, and no bundle files exist locally to confirm the referenced paths resolve.

Specificity

The description enumerates four concrete actions — 'install dependency (or dual-SDK pair), configure env and secrets with consent, add init at entrypoint(s), verify compile' — giving comprehensive, non-abstract coverage of what the skill does. It exceeds anchor 4 ('several specific actions, minor gaps') because the action list spans the entire apply step with no vague filler.

Completeness

The 'what' is explicit and concrete (install, configure secrets, add init, verify compile), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent trigger guidance — 'Nested under sdk-install; next is run' describes workflow position, not when to invoke it. Per the judging guidelines, a missing trigger clause caps completeness at 3 even with a clear 'what'.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms like 'LaunchDarkly SDK onboarding', 'install dependency', 'init at entrypoint(s)', and 'verify compile' align with what a user would say, but common synonyms such as 'feature flags', 'set up LaunchDarkly', or 'SDK setup' are missing. This matches anchor 4 (good keyword coverage, a few natural terms missing) rather than 3, since coverage goes beyond just naming the domain.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The LaunchDarkly-specific domain and the explicit position markers ('Nested under sdk-install; next is run') separate it from generic install/config skills and from sibling steps (plan, run, detect). It falls short of anchor 5 because distinctiveness rests on workflow position rather than explicit distinct triggers, leaving minor overlap risk with the sibling plan/run skills in the same onboarding flow.