Conciseness

The body is dense and almost entirely project-specific knowledge Claude cannot know (the registry/switch architecture, the WHATS_NEXT_CONFIG_BUILDERS map, the PrebuiltPromptBanner source-key convention, the port-4201 warning), with no filler explaining general concepts. It sits at 4 rather than 5 because of small trimmable redundancies — the layer-1-is-out-of-scope point is made in both the intro and the architecture diagram, and the description's scope restatement at the top adds little.

Actionability

Highly actionable: exact file paths, exact function signature `build<Channel>WhatsNextConfig(ctx): ChannelWhatsNextConfig`, the WHATS_NEXT_CONFIG_BUILDERS registration key, field-by-field WhatsNextStep typing, and a copy-pasteable flag-gating recipe (two named gate points). It misses anchor 5 because there is no actual code template for the config builder or the connect-button snippet — the 'Full templates' are delegated to a reference.md that does not exist, leaving the single most-copied artifact unwritten.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is explicit and gated: Step 0 prerequisites (provider enum entry, layer-1 guide, ConnectButton), then a checkboxed Create/Edit/Optional file checklist ordered by dependency, then the config contract, then a Build & verify section with concrete checkpoints (recap collapses, prompt banner + copyable snippet, 'Your users are connecting' footer, flag-off hides the guide). This matches the anchor-5 shape — checklist plus explicit validation steps with a conditional branch for the flag case.

Progressive Disclosure

Inline structure is good (clearly headed sections, a checklist, an architecture diagram), but the body's only external pointer — "Full templates: see [reference.md](reference.md)" — is a dangling reference: no references/ directory or reference.md exists anywhere in the skill bundle. That is the worst possible disclosure state for that content: it is signaled as one level deep but resolves to nothing, so the templates it promises are unreachable.

Specificity

The description names concrete deliverables — "the connected-state 'What's next' / 'FOR YOUR USERS' developer-rollout guide plus its connected details page", "the resolver/registry wiring under components/agents/agent-integration-guides" — and anchors them to the existing "Slack, MS Teams, and Telegram pattern". It stops short of anchor 5 because the actions are deliverable nouns rather than an exhaustive list of concrete operations, and 'layer-2' jargon is unpacked only implicitly.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the 'what' is the connected-state rollout guide + details page + resolver/registry wiring, and the 'when' is a literal trigger clause — "Use when a connected agent integration needs a per-provider 'what's next' guide (recap + dev steps with @novu/react ConnectButton snippet)". This matches the anchor-5 example's structure of concrete what followed by explicit 'Use when' trigger phrases; anchor 4 would require the 'when' to be less specific than it is.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural-term coverage: "Add a new chat channel", "onboarding", "what's next guide", "connected", plus the provider synonyms "Slack, MS Teams, and Telegram" and the product surface "@novu/react ConnectButton". Not anchor 5: it omits some natural variations a user might say (e.g. 'rollout guide', 'post-connect page', provider names beyond the three listed).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The trigger is tightly scoped ("connected-state", "per-provider", specific component names like <Channel>AgentConnectedDetails), giving it a clear niche. It stays at 4 rather than 5 because the body reveals closely related sibling skills (the layer-1 setup guide and the add-channel-connect-button skill) whose descriptions could plausibly fire on a similar 'add a channel' request, and the description does not explicitly disambiguate from them.