Conciseness

The body is lean — terse tables, short text-block examples, no concept tutorials — and assumes Claude already knows what SOLID is. It falls short of anchor 5 because the five workflow steps substantially restate the SOLID Checklist table's questions (e.g., Step 1's 'Does it handle more than one concern' duplicates the SRP row), which could be tightened into one pass.

Actionability

Concrete throughout: each step declares an Output, specific checks, a violation→refactor example, and the Quick Commands section provides copy-paste-ready `rg` commands. Anchor 5 is not reached because the rg patterns are crude heuristics (e.g., 'class.*Service.*Repository' will not reliably surface multi-concern classes) and the per-step examples are illustrative rather than executable, leaving minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

The five-step sequence is clearly ordered with a declared output per step, and several examples include validation lines ('Validation: Each class now has one reason to change'). It does not reach anchor 5 because validation lives only inside the illustrative examples — the workflow itself has no explicit checkpoint or re-check loop telling Claude to verify the refactor before moving on.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned with clear headers, but the References section points to 'references/detailed-examples.md' and 'references/anti-patterns-and-frameworks.md' — no references/ directory or bundle files exist in this skill, so both paths are dangling and navigation dead-ends. This matches anchor 3 (structure present, references not actually usable) rather than anchor 4, where references would be mostly clear and resolvable.

Specificity

The description names the domain and several concrete actions — 'tactical class design, method extraction, and interface definition' — and enumerates all five principles (SRP, OCP, LSP, ISP, DIP). It stops short of anchor 5 because the 'what' is framed as applying principles rather than listing a comprehensive set of concrete operations.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: the 'what' ('Apply SOLID principles (SRP, OCP, LSP, ISP, DIP) for tactical class design, method extraction, and interface definition') and a concrete 'Use when...' clause with three specific trigger scenarios. It clearly matches anchor 5 rather than anchor 4, where the 'when' would be less explicit or specific.

Trigger Term Quality

'reviewing class design', 'refactoring code for maintainability', and 'designing interfaces and abstractions' are natural phrases users would say, backed by the SOLID acronym itself as a strong trigger. A few common variations ('code smells', 'tight coupling', 'clean code') are missing, so it does not reach comprehensive anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

SOLID and 'tactical class design' carve out a clear niche distinct from adjacent skills (clean-architecture, design-patterns), and the body's 'When Not to Use' section reinforces boundaries. Minor overlap risk remains with generic 'refactoring code' triggers that could pull in general refactoring or testability skills, keeping it below anchor 5.