Conciseness

The ~80-line body contains only Vizro-specific knowledge: terse one-line gotchas, compact YAML patterns, exact imports, and a pointer table. There is no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and even the code comments carry non-obvious Vizro rules ("title inside figure args, NOT on component"). Every token earns its place, matching the 5 anchor rather than the 4 anchor's minor trimmable over-explanation.

Actionability

Quick Patterns provides copy-paste-ready YAML covering the common cases (standard scatter chart, KPI card, AG Grid table, filter with targets), and each Critical Mistake entry pairs a symptom with an exact fix ("use `data_frame` directly; never re-lookup via `data_manager[data_frame]`"). This matches anchor 5's fully executable, common-case coverage; not 4 because no key execution detail is missing from the snippets' scope.

Workflow Clarity

The body is clearly organized for task-driven lookup (mistakes to check first, patterns to copy, then a need→section table for deep dives), but it presents no explicit step sequence and no in-body validation checkpoint — the end-to-end flow and "Running the App" guidance live one level deep in the reference, and "Running the App" is not listed in the search table. Anchor 4 (clear structure, minor validation gaps) fits; not 5 because verification steps are only implicit, not 3 because navigation and task framing are unambiguous and no destructive/batch operations apply.

Progressive Disclosure

A single one-level-deep reference (references/yaml-reference.md) is clearly signaled twice — "expanded with code examples and fixes in yaml-reference.md" and "Load yaml-reference.md when you need expanded guidance" — and the need→search-string table maps to sections that all exist in the actual file (verified: ## End-to-End Data Flow, ## Data Registration, ## Custom Charts, ## AG Grid Tables, ## Containers, ## Tabs, ## Critical Mistakes to Avoid). Overview content is inline, bulk detail is split out; matches the 5 anchor exactly.

Specificity

"writing or debugging Vizro YAML dashboard configurations — component syntax, data_manager registration, custom function wiring, filter/parameter setup, or AG Grid tables" lists multiple concrete actions with comprehensive coverage of the domain. It fits the 5 anchor rather than 4 because the action list spans the full component surface rather than leaving gaps.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: the "what" is the concrete capability list ("data_manager registration, custom function wiring, filter/parameter setup"), and the "when" gives concrete triggers ("Activate when the user is building a Vizro app, encountering YAML or runtime errors, or asking about Vizro component patterns"). This mirrors the 5 anchor pattern; anchor 4 would require the when-clause to be less explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms are present (Vizro, dashboard, YAML, AG Grid, filter, runtime errors, app), but a few natural Vizro phrases users say are missing — "KPI cards", "chart/graph" — and no file extension (.yaml). This matches anchor 4 (good coverage, a few natural terms missing) rather than anchor 5's synonym-and-extension comprehensiveness; it is well above anchor 3's missing-variations level.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Vizro" is a distinctive product name anchoring every trigger phrase ("Vizro YAML", "Vizro app", "Vizro component patterns"), creating a clear niche with minimal conflict risk against generic dashboard or YAML skills. Matches the 5 anchor; not 4 since no closely related skill would realistically collide on these triggers.