Conciseness

At ~35 lines the body is lean and directive throughout — Arguments, Workflow, and Guardrails sections carry only operational content, explain nothing Claude already knows, and assume competence. Only the intro line restates the description, which is a negligible redundancy; this matches the "every token earns its place" anchor rather than the minor-trimming anchor 4.

Actionability

There is concrete guidance (script path, `git init`, `/usr/bin/open -n`, flag names `--debug/--logs/--telemetry/--verify`), but key execution details are missing: the exact script shape is delegated to `../build-run-debug/references/build-script.md`, which is not present in this skill's bundle, and step 1 ("Detect whether the repo uses an Xcode workspace, Xcode project, or SwiftPM package") gives no commands for detection. This lands on anchor 3 (some concrete guidance but incomplete) rather than 4, where concrete commands cover the workflow with only minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

The seven numbered steps form a clear, ordered sequence, and step 7 ("summarize any build, script, or launch failure") plus the `--verify` flag provide some failure feedback. It is not anchor 5 because there is no explicit validate-before-proceed checkpoint (e.g., confirming the build succeeded before relaunching, or checking the repo state before `git init`); it is above anchor 3 because the sequence and failure handling are explicit rather than implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

For a sub-50-line skill the sectioning (Arguments / Workflow / Guardrails) is clean, and the single external reference is well-signaled and one level deep. It is not anchor 5 because that sole reference (`../build-run-debug/references/build-script.md`) points outside the skill's own bundle, is unresolvable within this skill's directory, and carries the core script contract — a cross-skill dependency with no local fallback, which is a minor organization/navigation gap rather than a severe one.

Specificity

Names the domain (macOS build/run) with two concrete actions — "creates or updates the project-local macOS `script/build_and_run.sh`" and "uses it as the default build/run entrypoint" — but coverage is not comprehensive: the run/debug/logs/telemetry/verify modes and the .app-bundle launch behavior are omitted. Anchor 3 ("1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive") fits better than anchor 4, whose example lists three or more actions.

Completeness

Both parts are present: the "what" is clear (create/update the script, use it as the default entrypoint) and the "when/how to trigger" is explicit ("Invoke explicitly with /build-and-run-macos-app — this skill never self-triggers"), which counts as equivalent trigger guidance. Not anchor 5 because the trigger clause describes invocation mechanics rather than concrete usage situations (e.g., no "use when you want to build and launch a macOS app" phrasing).

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: "build", "run", "macOS", "entrypoint", "build_and_run.sh", and the explicit slash-command trigger "Invoke explicitly with /build-and-run-macos-app". A few natural terms users would say are missing ("launch", "Xcode", "debug", "scheme"), so it falls short of the comprehensive synonym coverage of anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A project-local macOS build/run script managed via a specific slash command is a clear, distinct niche — the specific file path and "never self-triggers" framing sharply reduce accidental triggering. Minor overlap risk remains with generic build/run or Xcode-related skills, so anchor 4 rather than 5.