Conciseness

The body is efficient — commands, expected-output descriptions, 'Done when' criteria, and exit-code semantics with little padding — but the four Examples substantially restate the use-case workflows, and a few asides ("The principle across all IaC fixes is: default to deny, encrypt at rest and in transit, minimize blast radius") state what Claude already knows. Not 3 because the over-explanation is minor and localized; not 5 because the Examples section is partially redundant with the use cases.

Actionability

Every step is copy-paste executable: exact commands with flags (snyk container test IMAGE:TAG --file=Dockerfile, snyk test --all-projects, docker build -t IMAGE:NEW-TAG .), concrete fix paths, and troubleshooting with exact error strings and exit-code semantics (1 = findings, 2 = error). Fully covers the common cases per domain.

Workflow Clarity

Explicit core loop ('scan → analyze → fix → verify → repeat until clean'), a scope-selection table for ambiguous requests, per-finding re-run verification ('Re-run to confirm the finding is gone'), rebuild-and-re-scan steps for containers, and explicit 'Done when' checkpoints per use case. Feedback loops are present throughout the destructive/batch-sensitive operations.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a genuine overview; each use case points to one real, one-level-deep reference file (references/code-security.md, dependency-security.md, container-security.md, iac-security.md — all verified to exist) with a one-line description of its contents ('command flags, fix patterns, and secure coding rules'). No inlined bulk detail and no nested references.

Specificity

"Runs Snyk CLI security scans and fixes the vulnerabilities found. Covers four domains: source code (SAST via snyk code test)... container images (snyk container test)... (snyk iac test)" lists multiple concrete actions, each tied to a specific CLI command, with third-person voice throughout. This is comprehensive, matching the anchor's example density; nothing is vague or generic.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ("Runs Snyk CLI security scans and fixes the vulnerabilities found" across four named domains with commands) and when ("Use this skill whenever the user wants to... Also trigger for requests like...") with concrete quoted trigger phrases. Matches the anchor-5 example structure exactly.

Trigger Term Quality

Excellent natural-phrase coverage ("scan for vulnerabilities", "audit dependencies", "secure a Dockerfile or container image", quoted "is my code/app/image/infra secure?", "check for CVEs", "find hardcoded secrets", "review my Terraform for security problems"), but file extensions (.tf, .yaml, package.json) that the top anchor expects are absent. Not score 3 because synonyms and paraphrased user requests are far more than 'some relevant keywords'; not 5 solely due to the missing extensions.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Snyk-scanning niche is clear and triggers are distinct, but the description deliberately claims generic requests ("fix security issues", "run a security scan") "even if Snyk is not mentioned by name", creating minor overlap risk with general security-review skills. Not 3 — the four-domain scoping keeps it well above 'could still overlap with similar skills'; not 5 because of the intentionally broad generic phrases.