Conciseness

The body is lean and entirely project-specific (scorer commands, stub patterns, section ordering) with no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. It fits 4 rather than 5 because a few tokens could be trimmed — the 'Explain' section's rationale ('A rule without code examples is hard to learn from') and the closing 'High-quality rules become high-quality skills' sentence add little actionable value.

Actionability

Concrete copy-paste commands are provided ('pnpm score:rules packages/content/rules/en/{category}/{slug}.mdx', 'pnpm validate:rule-structure ...') plus exact stub strings to grep for and a precise heading order. It matches 4 (mostly executable, minor gaps) rather than 5 because 'Use the repo browser policy plus package-backed compatibility data' names no file path, and no inline example of a well-written check/fix prompt is shown.

Workflow Clarity

There is a clear sequence — run the scorer and validator, identify failing dimensions, apply prioritized Fix steps 1–8, then verify via the Code Review checklist with explicit validation commands. It sits at 4 rather than 5 because the feedback loop of re-running the scorer after fixes is only implied by the review checklist, not stated as an explicit step; it is clearly above 3 since validation checkpoints are explicit throughout.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clean overview that summarizes the scoring dimensions in a table and delegates the full specification to 'references/scoring-rubric.md', which exists in the bundle, is one level deep, and is clearly signaled twice. This matches the 5 anchor — content is appropriately split with nothing inline that belongs in a separate file.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('Front-End Checklist rule MDX file') and lists several concrete actions — 'raise its quality score, fix stub prompts, add missing fields, or enrich content with real code examples'. It fits the 4 anchor (several specific actions, minor gaps) rather than 5 because 'raise its quality score' is a goal rather than a distinct concrete action and coverage omits tasks like structure validation.

Completeness

Both parts are explicit: an explicit 'Use when reviewing or improving a Front-End Checklist rule MDX file' trigger plus the what (fix stub prompts, add missing fields, enrich content with real code examples). It sits at 4 rather than 5 because the what is embedded inside the trigger clause as purposes instead of being stated as the skill's own capabilities, and clearly above 3 since the 'Use when' clause is present.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases a contributor would say are present: 'reviewing or improving', 'rule MDX file', 'quality score', 'stub prompts', 'code examples'. Good keyword coverage matching the 4 anchor; not 5 because common variations such as the '.mdx' extension, 'lint', or 'rubric' are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Front-End Checklist rule MDX file' is a clear niche trigger with distinct terms, so minimal conflict risk with any other skill. This matches the 5 anchor rather than 4, which only requires 'mostly distinct' scoping.