Conciseness

Mostly dense, scannable tables, but there is noticeable duplication and padding: the 'Hand Off' WHEN-list re-states routes already given in every symptom table, the CORS section inlines the full proxy/CNAME recipe while simultaneously pointing to 'core/references/local-development-proxy.md', and 'Still Stuck?' offers generic advice Claude already knows ('Read error messages carefully', 'Isolate the issue'). This fits 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened' better than the leaner anchors.

Actionability

Every symptom row gives a specific fix direction and target skill; exact error strings ('Action 'search' not found', 'Invalid localized string', 'no access to the analytics dataset'), exact env vars, exact paths ('proxy root paths /0.1.0 and /realtime'), exact support contact, and 10 concrete checklist items. As an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully actionable and covers the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

Strong checkpoints exist — the 'Security Checkpoint (First Diagnostic)' with an explicit STOP condition, the Emergency Debugging Checklist, and explicit WHEN escalation rules. Not a 5 because the top-level flow is not explicitly sequenced: 'Doc Retrieval' and 'Bundled References' sections appear before the 'First Diagnostic' checkpoint without stated placement, and the reader must infer the overall triage flow (checkpoint → symptom match → questions → route) from section conventions rather than an explicit step sequence.

Progressive Disclosure

Both bundle files (references/diagnostic-workflows.md, references/error-codes.md) exist and are clearly signaled with one-line purpose descriptions under 'Bundled References', one level deep, and the 'Canonical Sources' section defers spec content to developer.luzmo.com rather than duplicating. Not a 5 because the CORS section inlines implementation detail that already lives in the cited core reference file, so content splitting is only mostly appropriate.

Specificity

Concrete actions are explicitly stated: 'Triage router for all Luzmo problems', 'Diagnoses root cause by symptom and routes to the right implementation skill', 'Does NOT implement fixes'. Not a 5 because the action list is thin relative to the symptom breadth it claims ('rendering failure, data anomaly, API errors') — the specific symptom categories it triages on are not enumerated, leaving minor coverage gaps.

Completeness

Both 'what' and 'when' are explicit with concrete trigger phrases: what — 'Diagnoses root cause by symptom and routes to the right implementation skill. Does NOT implement fixes'; when — 'Use first whenever anything is broken... Use this skill first - even if you think you know the fix - for any Luzmo error, rendering failure, data anomaly, or unexpected behavior.' The forced-first-usage guidance is unusually explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Triggers on natural user phrasing with good synonym coverage: 'not working', 'broken', 'why is X failing', 'debug', chart '0 height', 'chart not loading', 'wrong data showing', API errors, plus 'rendering failure, data anomaly, or unexpected behavior'. These are phrases a user would naturally say when they need this skill.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Luzmo branding and explicit router role ('Does NOT implement fixes') give it a clear niche, but the generic trigger terms ('broken', 'not working', 'debug') carry minor overlap risk with general debugging skills outside the Luzmo ecosystem, and as a router for 'all Luzmo problems' it intentionally overlaps every sibling Luzmo skill — mitigated but not eliminated by the explicit first-use framing.