Conciseness

The body is code-first and lean — each API gets a short runnable snippet with almost no prose. Minor over-explanation remains: the persona intro 'You are an expert in micro, Vercel's lightweight framework...' and the line 'micro makes it easy to write single-purpose HTTP endpoints with minimal boilerplate' restate what Claude can infer, keeping it just below the 'every token earns its place' anchor.

Actionability

Nearly all guidance is executable: 'npm install micro', 'npx micro', complete handlers for json/text/buffer/send/createError, and a package.json with start/dev scripts. Minor gaps keep it from 5 — the modern 'serve(handler)' example omits port/listen details, and no example shows how a thrown createError is actually rendered to the client.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence install → write handler → run → dev workflow → package.json setup is clear and in order, and the skill is single-purpose with no destructive or batch operations (so no validation cap applies). It sits at 4 rather than 5 because there is no checkpoint confirming the server works (e.g., curl the endpoint) between 'npx micro' and moving on.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections (Installation, Basic Usage, Core API, Development, Composition, package.json, Key Points) are well-organized and the API reference is appropriately inline given micro's tiny surface (five helpers). No bundle files exist, which is reasonable at this size, but the >50-line body with a full inline API reference leaves minor room to split Core API into a references file, so it fits the 'good structure, minor organization gaps' anchor rather than 5.

Specificity

'Expert guidance for micro — asynchronous HTTP microservices framework by Vercel' names the domain but lists no concrete actions — capabilities like body parsing (json/text/buffer), response sending, error creation, and hot-reload dev tooling that the body actually covers are absent. This matches the anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'; it is below 3 because not even 1-2 concrete actions are stated.

Completeness

Both parts are present: the what ('asynchronous HTTP microservices framework by Vercel') and an explicit when ('Use when building lightweight HTTP servers, API endpoints, or microservices using the micro library'). It is not a 5 because the what identifies the library rather than stating concrete trigger-worthy capabilities, and the when could mention the classic Node http handler pattern.

Trigger Term Quality

'building lightweight HTTP servers, API endpoints, or microservices using the micro library' includes natural phrases users would say. It falls short of comprehensive coverage — variations like 'web server', 'Node.js endpoint', or 'micro-dev' are missing, though for a named library the core terms are strong.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The trigger is pinned to 'the micro library', giving a clear niche, but the generic phrases 'building lightweight HTTP servers' and 'API endpoints' overlap with skills for Express, Fastify, or plain Node servers. Minor overlap risk with closely related skills — the anchor 4 example, not the minimal-conflict anchor 5.