Conciseness

The body is dominated by dense symptom→cause→route tables where nearly every row earns its tokens, and the CORS prose gives concrete configuration facts rather than filler. Minor trimming is possible: the 'Still Stuck?' section offers generic advice Claude already knows ('Read error messages carefully — they often contain the solution'), the routing is stated three times (tables, 'Hand Off' section, 'Emergency Debugging Checklist'), and the one-line intro restates the description. Not score 5 because of that duplication; not 3 because none of it is concept explanation or padded prose.

Actionability

For an instruction-only router skill, guidance is fully executable: exact error strings to match ('Action \'search\' not found', 'Only one EmbedFilterGroup allowed', ERESOLVE), concrete API facts (POST with `action` in the body, `{ en: "..." }` localized objects, `sticky: true` on scheduled-export overrides), and specific configuration directives (proxy `/0.1.0` and `/realtime`, set `apiHost` to local origin, keep `appServer` direct, CNAME via support@luzmo.com). Per the scoring notes, absence of code is not penalized when guidance is this actionable; specific examples cover the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is explicit and gated: '[CRITICAL] Security Checkpoint (First Diagnostic)' with 'If ANY checkbox is unchecked, STOP' is a real validation checkpoint, each symptom category leads with branching diagnostic questions before the routing table, and 'Still Stuck?' plus the 'Emergency Debugging Checklist' provide the error-recovery feedback loop. The destructive/batch cap does not apply since this skill only diagnoses. Not 4 because checkpoints, ordering, and escalation loops are all explicit rather than merely present.

Progressive Disclosure

The 'Bundled References' section is exemplary: both files are one level deep, real, and described with when-to-read guidance ('When the inline tables aren't enough, read these'), and 'Canonical Sources' points to allowlisted docs. It falls short of 5 because the SKILL.md body is long for a router (~360 lines) and the multi-paragraph CORS Root Cause/local-dev/production detail could itself live in a reference file, leaving the body a purer overview.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('Triage router for all Luzmo problems') and lists several concrete actions in third person ('Diagnoses root cause by symptom and routes to the right implementation skill', 'Does NOT implement fixes'), with only minor gaps in coverage. It falls just short of anchor 5 because the action set (triage, diagnose, route) is narrower than a comprehensive multi-action enumeration.

Completeness

Both 'what' ('Diagnoses root cause by symptom and routes to the right implementation skill... Does NOT implement fixes') and 'when' ('Use first whenever anything is broken... Use this skill first - even if you think you know the fix') are explicitly and concretely answered, with a dedicated trigger-phrase list. The explicit non-goal sharpens the boundary further.

Trigger Term Quality

The 'Triggers on:' list comprehensively covers natural user phrasing — "not working", "broken", "why is X failing", "debug", chart "0 height", "chart not loading", "wrong data showing", API errors — plus synonyms like 'rendering failure', 'data anomaly', 'unexpected behavior'. These are exactly the phrases a user would naturally say when they need this skill.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description carves out a clear niche (Luzmo-only triage router with an explicit no-implementation boundary), making it distinct within a Luzmo skill suite. Minor overlap risk remains because generic triggers like 'not working', 'broken', and 'debug' could fire for non-Luzmo debugging contexts where 'Luzmo' is only in the domain qualifier, not the triggers.