Conciseness

The body is dominated by executable commands, flag tables, and state-machine details — every token mostly earns its place — but there is trimmable material: the near-empty "Cobalt Overview" section ("Use action names and parameters as needed"), the marketing-style intro paragraph, and phrases like "This is the fastest way to get a connection". Efficient with minor instances of over-explanation, so 4 rather than 5; well above 3 since no section is padded or explains concepts Claude already knows at length.

Actionability

Concrete, copy-paste-ready commands cover install, login (including headless completion), connection ensure, polling, action search/run, and proxy requests, with a flags table and parameter-passing examples — largely a 5. It drops to 4 because of dangling navigation: "skip to **Step 2**" is referenced twice but no Step 2 exists, and `action run` never shows a worked example with a real action id and input.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is clear (install → login → connect → poll until READY → discover actions → run, with the proxy as fallback) and includes a real feedback loop: poll `connection get --wait` and branch on READY/CLIENT_ACTION_REQUIRED/CONFIGURATION_ERROR with instructions per state. It sits at 4 rather than 5 because the workflow's internal step references are broken ("Step 2" and the lone "1b" heading imply a numbering that doesn't exist), and destructive actions like Delete Asset are listed with no verification guidance — a minor validation gap rather than an absent one.

Progressive Disclosure

This is a single-file skill with no bundle directories; the body is a moderately sized, well-sectioned getting-started guide (headers, tables, code blocks) that is easy to navigate and arguably needs no external references. It scores 4 rather than 5 only because it exceeds the compact single-file ideal slightly — the popular-actions table and clientAction state reference are borderline candidates for a separate reference file — and 3 doesn't fit since nothing that clearly belongs elsewhere is inlined and navigation is unambiguous.

Specificity

"Manage data, records, and automate workflows" names the Cobalt domain but the actions are entirely generic — no concrete operations appear, and notably none of the app's actual objects (findings, pentests, assets) mentioned in the body. This matches the anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic' rather than 3, which requires 1-2 concrete actions, and is above 1 since it does name the domain and specific nouns like records.

Completeness

Both parts are present: what ("Manage data, records, and automate workflows") and an explicit when ("Use when the user wants to interact with Cobalt data"), so the missing-trigger cap of 3 does not apply. It stays at 4 rather than 5 because the 'what' is vague and the 'when' is circular (it amounts to 'use when the topic is Cobalt') rather than giving concrete trigger phrases; it is above 3 because the 'when' clause is explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Keywords are "Cobalt", "data", "records", "workflows", "interact with Cobalt data" — the product name is a genuine natural term, but all other terms are generic filler with no domain-specific phrases users would actually say (no "findings", "pentests", "assets", "tickets"). This fits 'Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms' rather than 2, because Cobalt is a specific, naturally-spoken keyword rather than only generic language.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Cobalt integration" carves out a clear niche keyed to a specific SaaS product, so it is mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk from the generic tail ("manage data, records" could collide with database/records-management skills). Not 5 because the generic action terms leave some conflict room with data-management skills.