Conciseness

The body is mostly platform-specific knowledge Claude would not already have, but it could be tightened: the duplicate-explore-dashboard warning appears three times ("Do NOT also create a stand-alone `type: explore` file", "Do not create a separate `type: explore` file", "Creating a duplicate explore dashboard"), and the expense/caution guidance for models is stated twice. This matches anchor 3 (mostly efficient, some unnecessary explanation) better than 4 given the duplication across a ~300-line body.

Actionability

Guidance is concrete throughout: named tools with usage constraints ("`query_sql` for running SQL ... use `SELECT` statements with `LIMIT` clauses and low timeouts"), specific properties (`olap_connector:`, `managed: true`, `mode: read`, `timeseries:`), a CLI fallback (`rill validate`), and concrete limits ("up to 10 dimensions and up to 5 measures"). It falls short of anchor 5 because no example YAML/SQL snippets for any resource type are included.

Workflow Clarity

The "Recommended workflow" gives a numbered 8-step sequence with pre-flight checks (write access, data access, OLAP mode), explicit per-stage validation ("At each stage, check if there is a parse or reconcile error"), an iterate-until-fixed feedback loop, and `wait_until_idle` to block on reconciliation. This matches anchor 5 (clear sequence, explicit validation steps, feedback loops for error recovery); it exceeds 4 because checkpoints are woven through the process rather than only at the end.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned and correctly defers detail ("The descriptions are high-level; you can find detailed descriptions and examples in the separate resource-specific instruction files"), but those references are not clearly signaled: they name no files or paths ("the metrics view instructions", "the instructions for model development", the `rill-metrics-view` skill) and no references/ bundle exists to back them. This matches anchor 3 (references present but not clearly signaled) rather than 4, where references would be mostly concrete and resolvable.

Specificity

"Overview of how to develop a Rill project" names the domain but lists no concrete actions (no models, dashboards, connectors, or metrics views are mentioned). It sits at anchor 2 rather than 3 because not even one or two concrete actions are named, and above 1 because the domain is specifically identified.

Completeness

The description gives a 'what' (developing a Rill project) but it is high-level and there is no 'when to use' clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3. It stays at 3 rather than dropping to 2 because the activity and domain are at least stated, if briefly.

Trigger Term Quality

"Rill" and "develop" are relevant natural keywords, but common phrases a user would actually say — dashboard, BI, metrics, connector, model — are absent. This matches anchor 3 (some relevant keywords, missing variations/synonyms) better than 4, since keyword coverage is thin.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Rill" is a distinctive niche platform name, so any query mentioning Rill maps unambiguously to this skill with minimal conflict risk, matching anchor 5. It is not 4 because the overlap risk with other skills is negligible, not merely minor.