Conciseness

The body is dense and prescriptive with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows, fitting 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed'. It is not a 5 because the raw-executable-launch warning is stated three times (workflow step 2, step 3 line 59, and the Guardrails section) and the simulator caveat appears twice.

Actionability

Concrete, copy-pasteable commands appear at every stage — 'git rev-parse --is-inside-work-tree', 'xcodebuild -list -workspace <workspace>', './script/build_and_run.sh --debug', 'pgrep -x <AppName>', and the full Info.plist key list — with the executable script body delegated to the real references/build-run-script.md. This is 'mostly executable guidance with minor gaps' rather than a 5, since a few directives stay high-level ('prefer the app-producing scheme', 'identify executable products when possible').

Workflow Clarity

The seven-step Workflow is clearly sequenced from project discovery through failure classification to debugging, with a feedback path (step 5 'Classify the blocker ... Quote the smallest useful error snippet' feeding step 6 debug) and a validation mode in '--verify' with 'pgrep -x <AppName>'. It misses anchor 5 because validation is offered as an optional flag rather than an explicit checkpoint in the sequence (e.g., the workflow never says to verify the process after launch by default).

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned and pushes the full script template to a single real, one-level-deep reference (references/build-run-script.md), clearly signaled in both the References section and workflow step 3 ('Use references/build-run-script.md as the canonical source'). It falls short of a 5 because the body still inlines script-level detail (the Info.plist key list and flag semantics in step 3) that duplicates the canonical reference's territory.

Specificity

The description names three concrete actions ("Build, run, and debug macOS apps") plus a concrete approach ("shell-first Xcode and Swift workflows"), which matches the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor rather than the comprehensive multi-action list of a 5 (e.g., it omits script setup, log streaming, or lldb support that the body actually covers).

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: 'what' is "Build, run, and debug macOS apps with shell-first Xcode and Swift workflows" and 'when' is "Use when launching apps or diagnosing build, startup, or runtime failures" — a clear 'Use when' clause with concrete trigger phrases, exactly matching the anchor-5 example pattern. It is not a 4 because the trigger guidance is already specific rather than merely present.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms users would say are well covered — "macOS apps", "Xcode", "Swift", "build", "launching apps", "runtime failures" — matching 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing'. It stops short of anchor 5 because common phrasings like 'crash', 'compile error', 'won't start', or file extensions (.xcodeproj, .xcworkspace) are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"macOS apps" plus "Xcode and Swift" carves out a clear niche that a user would not confuse with document or data skills, but "debug ... runtime failures" leaves minor overlap risk with closely related sibling skills (the body itself points to a separate macos-telemetry skill). This fits 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills' rather than the minimal-conflict 5.