Conciseness

The body is dominated by lean, project-specific instruction (commands, tables, checkbox rules) with little padding. The main exception is the three-sentence rationale under 'Change comments' explaining why sentence-style reads cleanly, which could be trimmed to one line — matching anchor 4's 'minor instances of over-explanation'. It never drifts into anchor 2-3 territory of explaining concepts Claude already knows.

Actionability

Nearly every section gives copy-paste-ready commands (`npm run change`, `npm run checkchange`, `npm run change -- --branch origin/{branch-name}`, `npm run prebuild -w sites/website`), a change-type decision table, per-checkbox rules grounded in observable terminal output, and a complete migration-doc format template. This matches anchor 5's fully executable, common-case-covering guidance.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is well-ordered (test-first for bug fixes with 'ensure that it is failing', pre-finish verification of build/test/format:check/checkchange, then change files and doc regeneration) with most checkpoints present. It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no explicit fix-and-retry feedback loop when a check fails (e.g., what to do when `checkchange` fails), though it comfortably exceeds anchor 3's implicit checkpoints.

Progressive Disclosure

All external references are repo files (PR template, CONTRIBUTING.md, beachball.config.js) that are one level deep and each annotated with its purpose, and the ~210-line body is organized into clearly headed sections. Minor gaps keep it at anchor 4 rather than 5: '## Key references' is oddly nested under '# Guardrails', and the ~50 lines of per-section PR-template instructions could arguably live in a reference file since the template itself is linked as the source of truth.

Specificity

The description names several concrete actions ('creating pull requests, generating change files, writing PR descriptions') but 'keeping documentation up to date' is generic and related work (commit conventions, breaking-change migrations) is uncovered. This matches anchor 4 (several specific actions, minor gaps) rather than anchor 5's comprehensive coverage, and clearly exceeds anchor 3's 1-2 concrete actions.

Completeness

Both parts are explicit: the 'what' is the enumerated action list and the 'when' is 'when contributing changes to the FAST monorepo'. However the 'when' is a single broad clause rather than concrete trigger phrases (compare anchor 5's 'when working with PDF files or when the user mentions PDFs, forms, or document extraction'), so anchor 4 fits best; it is well above anchor 3 where 'when' is only weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger terms include 'pull requests', 'PR descriptions', 'change files', 'contributing changes', and 'FAST monorepo' — phrases a user would naturally say. A few common variants are missing (e.g., 'ship/shipping', 'commit message', 'release'), which fits anchor 4's 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' rather than anchor 5's synonym-and-extension completeness.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Scoping to 'the FAST monorepo' plus repo-specific artifacts (change files, beachball-style versioning) carves a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk with general skills. This matches anchor 5 and is clearly stronger than anchor 4's 'minor overlap risk with closely related skills'.