Conciseness

Nearly all content is Cursor-specific knowledge Claude would not already have (event names, matcher regex syntax, per-event output fields, exit-code semantics) with no padding or explanations of known concepts. Key operational points are repeated across sections — matcher debugging, making scripts executable, and path rules each appear 2-3 times (e.g. in both 'Matchers' and 'Validation and Troubleshooting') — so it is efficient with minor trimming possible rather than score-5 lean.

Actionability

Examples are fully executable and copy-paste ready: a complete hooks.json, a working bash script that reads stdin JSON with jq and returns valid permission JSON, a prompt hook example, plus exact matcher values ('curl|wget|nc ') and per-event output fields. This matches the score-5 anchor ('copy-paste ready code or commands; specific examples cover the common cases'); score 4 would imply gaps in the examples.

Workflow Clarity

The 9-step 'Implementation Workflow' has explicit validation checkpoints ('Trigger the relevant action to test the hook', 'Verify behavior in Cursor's Hooks settings tab or the Hooks output channel'), an error-recovery feedback loop ('remove the matcher and confirm the base hook works before tightening it'), and a final checklist. This clearly matches the score-5 anchor including feedback loops and checklists for complex processes.

Progressive Disclosure

A single well-sectioned SKILL.md with clear headers and no bundle files to reference; the content is cohesive process guidance plus compact lookup tables (the event list and 'Event Output Cheat Sheet') that could arguably move to a reference file. Good structure with minor organization gaps fits score 4 — above score 3's misplaced inline content, but not the score-5 pattern of an overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — 'create a hook', 'write hooks.json', 'add hook scripts' — though 'automate behavior around agent events' is generic, which alone would fit the score-4 anchor ('several specific actions; minor gaps in coverage'). However, the trigger clause 'Use when you want to create a hook...' is written in second person, and the judging guidelines mandate reducing the specificity score by 1 for second-person voice, bringing it to 3.

Completeness

'Create Cursor hooks' explicitly states the what, and 'Use when you want to create a hook, write hooks.json, add hook scripts, or automate behavior around agent events' is an explicit when clause with multiple concrete trigger phrases. This clearly matches the score-5 anchor; score 4 would require the when to be less explicit or specific.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms a user would actually say are present — 'create a hook', 'hooks.json', 'hook scripts', 'agent events' — but common variations such as 'event handler', 'hook configuration', or 'trigger script' are missing. This matches the score-4 anchor ('good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing') rather than 5's comprehensive synonym and extension coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Cursor hooks', 'hooks.json', and 'agent events' pin a clear niche, but the bare trigger 'create a hook' could also fire for git-hook or React-hook requests, giving minor overlap risk. This fits the score-4 anchor ('mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills') rather than 5's minimal conflict risk.