Conciseness

The body is lean and efficient: a boundaries table, short workflow list, and guidance consisting only of codebase-specific facts (file paths, the await-before-respond pitfall). No generic concept explanations or padding; every token earns its place. Not lower because nothing can obviously be cut.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance: exact file paths per contract boundary (e.g. "electron/main/ipc/schemas.ts", "src/lib/session/provider-event-replay.ts") and a specific known pitfall (async runtime functions must be awaited before respond()). Not 5 because steps like "Find the producer" lack concrete search techniques or commands.

Workflow Clarity

Clear 5-step sequence with explicit confirmation checkpoints ("Confirm the consumer and any replay or persistence path", "Check tests that mention the same type, event, or function") and an Avoid checklist for common failure modes. This is a read-only navigation skill, so the destructive/batch validation cap does not apply; not 4 because no checkpoint is missing.

Progressive Disclosure

Under 50 lines, single-purpose, well-organized sections, no bundle files provided, and the one reference (docs/architecture/conversation-flow.md) is clearly signaled in context. Per the simple-skill guideline, well-organized sections score 5 here.

Specificity

Names the domain ("the Stave codebase") and one concrete action ("Trace a behavior, event, or request path"), but does not enumerate several distinct capabilities such as forward and reverse tracing. It sits at 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions', not at 4, which requires a list of several specific actions with only minor gaps.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: the "what" ("Trace a behavior, event, or request path through the Stave codebase") and the "when" ("Use when the request asks 'where does this happen', 'execution path', 'call flow'..."), with concrete trigger phrases. Matches the 5 anchor exactly; not lower because neither half is vague.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural phrases users would actually say — "where does this happen", "execution path", "call flow" — plus Korean synonyms ("흐름 추적", "어디서 처리돼"). Not 5 because common variations like "code path" or "how does this work" are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche — execution-path tracing within a specific codebase — with distinct trigger phrases and the producer -> bridge -> consumer framing. Minimal overlap risk with other skills; not lower because it could not naturally trigger for an unrelated skill.