Conciseness

The ~64-line body is lean and table-driven with a one-sentence core principle and no explanations of concepts Claude already knows; the only redundancy is the rewrite rule repeated between the intro and 'Do not'. It matches anchor 5 ('Lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence; every token earns its place') since that single repetition is not over-explanation.

Actionability

Both deno commands are copy-paste ready and exactly match the bundled scripts' documented usage (verified against recipe-scaffold.ts and coverage-audit.ts), and the diagnostic steps are concrete heuristics ('Read 3 random recipes and match them to the states', 'Read the first sentence of each paragraph. It must stand alone'). This matches anchor 5 ('Fully executable; copy-paste ready code or commands; specific examples cover the common cases').

Workflow Clarity

A clear 7-step numbered diagnose sequence with per-step pass criteria ('Headings must tell the story', 'It must stand alone') and a session-end feedback loop with escalation ('Did this solve what you were trying to do?' plus issue filing). It is not a 5 because the fix/intervention phase has no per-fix validation loop in the body; the non-destructive, read-only nature of the operations means the destructive/batch cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clear overview with five purpose-labeled, one-level-deep reference pointers ('For expanded symptoms, questions, and interventions, load `references/states.md`' and four others), all verified to exist in references/, plus two bundled scripts. This matches anchor 5 ('Clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references; content appropriately split; easy navigation').

Specificity

The description names the domain and three quality dimensions ("Diagnose cookbook quality: skimmability, clarity, and reader load") but lists only one action verb ("diagnose"); the scaffold/audit/guide capabilities in the body are absent, matching the anchor 'Names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'. It is not a 4 because it does not list several specific concrete actions.

Completeness

Both 'what' ("Diagnose cookbook quality: skimmability, clarity, and reader load") and 'when' ("Use when recipes are hard to follow or a new cookbook is starting") are explicitly present with two concrete trigger conditions. It is not a 5 because the 'what' is a single high-level action and the trigger coverage is narrower than the comprehensive anchor example.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases users would say are present ("recipes are hard to follow", "a new cookbook is starting", "cookbook quality"), giving good keyword coverage. It is not a 5 because common variations and synonyms such as "documentation", "confusing", or "recipe writing" are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The explicit boundary "It does not set house voice (that's `docs-writing-style`)" disambiguates from the closest sibling skill, and "cookbook"/"recipes" carve a clear niche. It is not a 5 because those terms could still overlap with other documentation-quality or writing skills beyond the one explicitly excluded.