Conciseness

The body is lean and non-obvious throughout: a copy-paste scaffold command with CI=1 explained in one line, a gotcha note about directory naming and pod install, concrete boilerplate-removal checklists, and compact Swift/Kotlin/TS skeletons. It never explains concepts Claude already knows (no "what is Expo" padding), and the only trimmable token is the intro line that restates the frontmatter description. Not below 5 because that single redundant line is minor and the rest earns its place.

Actionability

Everything is executable: `CI=1 npx create-expo-module@latest --local --name MyModule ...`, a flags table with real examples, exact file paths to delete ("Delete `ios/MyModuleView.swift`, `android/.../MyModuleView.kt`"), a complete generated-structure tree, and full working Swift/Kotlin/TypeScript module definitions plus expo-module.config.json. Copy-paste ready with common cases covered.

Workflow Clarity

The scaffold workflow is clearly sequenced (scaffold → rename to kebab-case → `pod install` → decide module/view → strip boilerplate → remove web files) with one explicit checkpoint ("skipping `pod install` after any rename causes iOS build failures"). Not 5 because there is no explicit post-change validation step or feedback loop (e.g., "build and confirm both platforms compile before proceeding"); not 3 because the sequence is complete and the riskiest step has a concrete failure-mode guard.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an overview + quick start, with a clearly signaled references block listing all five real one-level-deep files (native-module.md, native-view.md, lifecycle.md, config-plugin.md, module-config.md) each with a one-line purpose. The bulk DSL/type-system detail is correctly deferred to those files, and all listed paths exist on disk. Easy to navigate, no inline dumping of reference material.

Specificity

"Covers module definition DSL, native views, shared objects, config plugins, lifecycle hooks, autolinking, and type system" lists multiple concrete capabilities in third person ("Guide for writing"), with comprehensive coverage matching the skill body's actual scope. Not 4 because coverage spans every major subsystem the skill documents with no meaningful gaps.

Completeness

The "what" is explicit ("Guide for writing Expo native modules and views using the Expo Modules API (Swift, Kotlin, TypeScript)...") and the "when" is an explicit trigger clause ("Use when building or modifying native modules for Expo") with concrete, naturally phrased conditions. Not 4 because the when-clause is specific and unambiguous, not merely present.

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when building or modifying native modules for Expo" plus "Expo native modules", "native views", "Swift, Kotlin, TypeScript", "config plugins" are natural phrases users would say. A few likely search terms are missing (e.g., "React Native", "iOS/Android native code"), keeping it just short of the synonym-complete anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Expo native modules and views using the Expo Modules API" carves out a clear niche with distinct triggers (Expo, Swift/Kotlin module DSL, config plugins); adjacent skills (e.g., generic React Native or iOS development) would not fire on these phrases. Minimal overlap risk.