Conciseness

The body is a lean ~65-line index: a priority table, one-line rule summaries, and pointers to detail files, assuming Claude's competence throughout. Not a 5 because the 'When to Apply' list largely restates the frontmatter description and the 'How to Use' section repeats what the rule naming and file paths already convey — small trims are available.

Actionability

The rule one-liners are directive ("Don't add boolean props to customize behavior; use composition", "Use children for composition instead of renderX props"), which gives real guidance, but the body contains no executable code, commands, or before/after example — the actual code examples live entirely in the referenced rule files. This matches 'some concrete guidance but incomplete' rather than 'mostly executable'.

Workflow Clarity

The intended flow (check 'When to Apply', pick a category by priority, read the named rule files, consult AGENTS.md for the full guide) is discernible but never sequenced or prioritized into steps, and there is no guidance for applying rules during a refactor or review. The sequence is present but implicit with gaps, matching anchor 3; not a destructive/batch operation so no validation cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure: an overview with a priority table, one-level-deep references to rules/*.md that are clearly signaled ("Read individual rule files for detailed explanations and code examples"), and a described contents contract for each rule file. Not a 5 because the referenced rule files and AGENTS.md are not present in the provided bundle to verify, the rule paths appear in a plain code block rather than as navigable references, and the dual paths (individual rules vs. the 'full compiled' AGENTS.md) leave navigation choice ambiguous.

Specificity

"React composition patterns that scale" names the domain but is an abstract topic statement rather than a list of concrete capabilities; the only quasi-concrete action appears secondhand in the 'Use when refactoring components with boolean prop proliferation' clause. It sits between 'names the domain but actions are minimal' (2) and 'several specific actions with minor gaps' (4), so 3 fits best.

Completeness

Both parts are present: the 'when' is explicit with concrete triggers ("Use when refactoring components with boolean prop proliferation... Triggers on tasks involving compound components..."), and the 'what' is "React composition patterns that scale". Falls short of 5 because the 'what' is a single abstract phrase with light fluff ("that scale") rather than concrete capabilities, and short of anchor 3 because 'when' is explicit, not weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Strong natural terms a developer would actually say: "boolean prop proliferation", "compound components", "render props", "context providers", "refactoring", "reusable APIs". Not a 5 because there are no synonyms/common variations for less expert phrasing (e.g., 'prop drilling', 'reusable components', 'component design').

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (React composition/architecture) with distinctive triggers like "boolean prop proliferation", "render props", and "compound components" that few other skills would claim. Minor overlap risk remains with generic React/frontend coding or style-guide skills via the broader phrase "component architecture".