Conciseness

The body is lean: a short Purpose, three numbered steps with executable bash, and a compact 'Why each step is needed' table, with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows. It is not a 5 because the Purpose sentence and the table slightly restate information already conveyed by the steps, leaving minor trimmable tokens.

Actionability

Steps give concrete, copy-paste-ready commands ('git worktree list', 'MAIN=$(...) cp $MAIN/.env ./.env', 'pnpm build:server'). It is not a 5 because step 1 tells the reader to derive $MAIN manually while step 2 re-derives it inline, a minor redundancy/gap; it is not a 3 because the guidance is fully executable rather than pseudocode.

Workflow Clarity

A clear 1-2-3 sequence with a soft verification checkpoint ('pnpm dev should now start without errors'). It is not a 5 because there is no explicit validate-fix-retry loop for the case where pnpm dev still fails, and not a 3 because the sequence and end-state verification are present and unambiguous.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no need for external references, and is well-organized into Purpose, Steps, and a Why table; per the rubric's simple-skill guidance this qualifies for a 5 on structure alone. It is not lower because navigation and placement are appropriate for a skill of this size.

Specificity

Names the domain (git worktree setup) and two concrete actions — 'copying gitignored files (bin/)' and 'building server assets' — but stops at two actions rather than comprehensive coverage. It is not a 4 because no additional specific actions are listed, and not a 2 because the actions are concrete rather than minimal/generic.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (set up a worktree by copying gitignored files and building assets) but there is no 'Use when...' clause, so the 'when' is only weakly implied. Per the judging guidelines a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness at 3; it is not a 2 because the 'what' is concrete, not vague.

Trigger Term Quality

'git worktree' is a natural term a user would say, and 'pnpm dev' / 'bin/' are domain-relevant, but common variations or synonyms are missing. It is not a 4 because keyword coverage is thin (one core natural term), and not a 2 because 'git worktree' is a genuine user-facing phrase rather than generic language.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The combination of 'git worktree', 'bin/', and 'pnpm dev' carves a specific niche for this repo with minor overlap risk. It is not a 5 because the trigger phrasing is not distinctive enough to fully eliminate overlap with general git/worktree skills, and not a 3 because the repo-specific artifacts make it clearly more than 'somewhat specific'.