Conciseness

The body is lean and operational throughout: "Start with the smallest read operation that can answer the request", "If LinkedIn presents a captcha, two-factor prompt, or other user-owned authentication step, stop and ask the user to complete it". Nothing explains what LinkedIn, MCP, or a browser is beyond facts Claude cannot know (e.g. "Installing or enabling the plugin does not sign in"), so every token earns its place — anchor 5, not the 4 anchor, which requires over-explanation to trim.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable for an MCP-policy skill: exact tool names are mapped to task categories ("Profiles: `get_my_profile`, `get_person_profile`, `search_people`", "Jobs: `search_jobs`, `get_saved_jobs`, `get_job_details`"), and every rule is a concrete decision ("retry once after it finishes", "use `close_session` only when the user asks... or when the current LinkedIn task is finished"). Per the rubric's code-vs-instruction note, absence of code is not penalized when guidance is this actionable — anchor 5.

Workflow Clarity

The risky operations each carry explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: writes require "the user explicitly authorizes the exact recipient and action" plus confirmation of "the final message or connection note"; auth errors have bounded recovery ("report that exact state and retry once... Do not loop"); failed writes have a check-before-retry rule ("Do not retry a failed write action unless the result proves it was not sent"). This matches anchor 5's "explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery" with no gaps that would drop it to 4.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is 48 lines with no bundle files (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ exist) and no external content is needed, so the rubric's simple-skill exception applies: well-organized sections ("Operating rules", "Browser and authentication", "Tool selection") with the tool catalog appropriately inlined earns a 5. All paths it names are real MCP tools, not dangling file references.

Specificity

"Use LinkedIn data for profile, company, job, post, feed, inbox, recruiting, and outreach work through the bundled LinkedIn MCP server" enumerates eight specific work areas, matching the anchor "Lists several specific actions; minor gaps in coverage". It is not a 5 because the actions are object-level rather than verb-level concrete — there is no "search", "send", or "fetch" action language, and the write actions the body governs (messaging, connecting) are absent from the description.

Completeness

Both questions are answered explicitly: the 'what' is "Use LinkedIn data for profile, company, job, post, feed, inbox, recruiting, and outreach work through the bundled LinkedIn MCP server" and the 'when' is the concrete trigger "Use only for an explicit LinkedIn request". This matches anchor 5 ("clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases") rather than anchor 4, whose caveat ("'when' could be more explicit or specific") does not apply — the trigger condition is crisp and unambiguous.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms a user would say are well covered: "LinkedIn", "profile", "company", "job", "post", "feed", "inbox", "recruiting", and "outreach". It falls short of the anchor-5 "comprehensive coverage of natural terms including synonyms" because common phrasings like "messages", "connect", "network", or "InMail" are missing — a user asking to "check my LinkedIn messages" has no exact term match.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"LinkedIn" is a clear niche with a restrictive trigger ("Use only for an explicit LinkedIn request"), matching anchor 5 ("clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk"). No other skill domain would plausibly collide with an explicit LinkedIn request, so the score is not the 4 anchor, which requires some overlap with closely related skills.