Conciseness

The body is prescriptive rather than explanatory — it never explains what Clean Architecture is, and sections like the layer list and step templates assume Claude's competence. It is not a 5 because there is noticeable duplication: entity-framework leakage appears in both Step 5's example and the second anti-pattern, interface contracts appear in Step 4 and the fourth anti-pattern, and the IOrderRepository port example appears in both Step 4 and the sixth anti-pattern.

Actionability

Most guidance is executable: concrete TypeScript interfaces for ports and adapters, a dependency-direction rg command, a framework-leakage rg command (`rg -n "@Entity|@Injectable|@Component" src/domain`), and an ADR template. It is not a 5 because some examples are illustrative rather than complete — PostgresOrderRepository.save has only a comment body ("// Map entity to ORM, persist") and the `nx graph` command is given without how to read its output for cycles.

Workflow Clarity

The six-step workflow is clearly sequenced with an explicit 'Output' per step, and Step 2 provides a verification checklist; the Quick Commands section supplies runnable detection steps. It is not a 5 because there is no feedback loop — no step says to re-run the dependency checks after a refactor to confirm the violation is resolved, so checkpoints are present but a validation-retry cycle is only implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an overview that defers detail to 28 real, one-level-deep reference files organized by category (Dependencies, Components, Boundaries, Entities, Use Cases, Adapters, Frameworks), and dep-inward-only.md is signalled inline where needed. It is not a 5 because comp-common-reuse.md exists in references/ but is never linked (an orphan), and the ~90-line Anti-Patterns section substantially duplicates material in the usecase-/dep-/frame- references that could be split out.

Specificity

The description names three concrete actions — "define layer boundaries", "identify dependency violations", "structure domain vs infrastructure code" — which cover the skill's core capabilities with only minor gaps (e.g., adapter/port design is only implied via the 'Use when' clause). It lists several specific actions but is not fully comprehensive, matching the score-4 anchor rather than the 5 whose example enumerates a complete action set.

Completeness

Both 'what' ("Apply Clean Architecture principles to define layer boundaries, identify dependency violations, and structure domain vs infrastructure code") and an explicit 'when' ("Use when designing service boundaries... or resolving dependency inversion and circular dependency issues") are clearly stated with concrete trigger phrases, matching the score-5 anchor exactly; it is not the 4 because the 'when' clause is already explicit and specific.

Trigger Term Quality

Trigger phrases are natural user language with synonyms included: "designing service boundaries", "separating business logic from infrastructure", "hexagonal/onion/ports-and-adapters architecture", "structing module layout", "dependency inversion and circular dependency issues". Coverage includes the named-variant synonyms users actually say (hexagonal, onion, ports-and-adapters), matching the comprehensive score-5 anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Clean Architecture / hexagonal framing carves a mostly distinct niche, but adjacent skills like solid-principles, design-patterns, and testable-design overlap on trigger phrases such as 'separating business logic' — the body's 'When Not to Use' disambiguation is not surfaced in the description. Minor overlap risk with closely related skills fits the score-4 anchor; it is not 5 because that disambiguation is missing.