Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient (tight anti-pattern entries with WHY rationale, compact quick commands), but the "Common Patterns" section re-explains textbook GoF patterns (Observer boilerplate, Adapter, Humble Object) Claude already knows. Not a 2 because prose is sparse and the examples are compact rather than padded.

Actionability

Runnable rg commands, before/after TypeScript examples, and per-step output templates give mostly executable guidance. Minor gaps keep it below 5: several examples use "/* ... */" placeholder bodies and undefined types (Email, Receipt, Event) rather than fully copy-paste-ready code.

Workflow Clarity

The three-step selection workflow has explicit per-step outputs, a "measurable, not aspirational" win-condition checkpoint, and a Validation line in the documentation template. It lacks an explicit post-application feedback loop (verify the win condition was actually met), so it does not reach the 5 anchor; not a destructive or batch skill, so no cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

Well-sectioned overview with 11 labeled references that all exist and are one level deep (no nested references, verified), matching the good-structure anchor. Minor gaps: the reference list gives no "read this when" guidance, and inline pattern examples partially duplicate references/detailed-examples.md.

Specificity

"Select and apply structural design patterns (Strategy, Factory, Adapter, Observer, etc.) to reduce complexity in class design" names the domain, two concrete actions, and specific patterns. It falls just short of the 5 anchor's comprehensive multi-action coverage (no mention of evaluating or documenting outcomes, which the body actually covers).

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what ("Select and apply structural design patterns ... to reduce complexity in class design") and when, with an explicit "Use when" clause containing five concrete trigger phrases. This matches the 5 anchor directly rather than the 4 anchor, whose 'when' is less specific.

Trigger Term Quality

"Refactoring conditional logic", "too many if/else statements or code smells", "resolving inheritance problems", and "deciding how to structure classes" are natural phrases users would say. A few common variants (e.g., "switch statements", "polymorphism") are missing, keeping it below the 5 anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The class-design scope and triggers like "if/else statements" and "inheritance problems" carve a clear niche distinct from sibling skills (solid-principles, clean-architecture). Minor overlap risk remains with general refactoring skills, so it does not reach the 5 anchor's minimal-conflict bar.