Conciseness

The ~30-line body is tight and sectioned (Quick Reference, Check, Fix, Explain, Code Review) with no padding, though the opening line "Source maps are essential for debugging production issues effectively without compromising the performance benefits of minification" explains a concept Claude already knows, and the trailing "Rule page" URL duplicates metadata already in the frontmatter. Not level 5 because of those two trimmable items; not level 3 because the waste is minor rather than a pattern of unnecessary explanation.

Actionability

The body offers only high-level direction — "Update the build configuration to generate source maps and integrate with an error tracking service" and "Upload source maps to error tracking services (e.g., Sentry)" — with no concrete config keys, commands, or code samples anywhere in the body; the promised executable detail lives entirely in references/rule.md. Not level 1 because the Quick Reference bullets do name specific actions and a concrete tool (Sentry); not level 3 because there is no partially executable guidance — nothing in the body can be acted on without opening the reference.

Workflow Clarity

The Check → Fix → Explain → Code Review sections form a recognizable sequence, and "Verify the actual bottleneck in DevTools, Lighthouse, or field data before recommending changes" acts as an implicit pre-change checkpoint. However, there is no post-fix verification step in the body (the reference file's Verification section is never surfaced as a workflow step), so checkpoints remain implicit. Not level 4 because validation is implied rather than explicit; not level 2 because the sequence is defined and each step has a stated intent.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a compact overview that defers detail via a clearly signaled, one-level-deep pointer — "For full implementation details, code examples, and framework-specific guidance, see references/rule.md" — and that file exists and actually contains the promised Webpack/Vite code examples, matching the bundle structure. Not level 5 because the trailing duplicated rule URL is dead weight and the Quick Reference bullets partially duplicate content in the reference file rather than being organized as per-topic navigation into it; not level 3 because the split between overview and detail is appropriate and the reference is prominently signaled.

Specificity

The description names the domain and a couple of concrete actions — "Provide source maps for production debugging" and "Verify the actual bottleneck in DevTools, Lighthouse, or field data before recommending changes" — but the actions are few and the key phrase is awkwardly embedded mid-sentence rather than listed. It is above level 2 (domain plus real actions, not just generic processing) but below level 4, which expects several specific actions with only minor coverage gaps.

Completeness

Both a 'what' ("Provide source maps for production debugging") and an explicit 'when' ("Use when auditing slow page loads, heavy assets, or rendering delays related to...") are present, so it clears the level-2/3 floor for missing triggers. However, the sentence is grammatically broken ("related to Provide source maps...") and the when-clause's triggers (page loads, assets, rendering delays) are misaligned with the debugging purpose, so it does not reach level 4's 'both present and clearly tied' standard.

Trigger Term Quality

It contains relevant keywords ("slow page loads", "heavy assets", "rendering delays", "DevTools", "Lighthouse", "source maps", "production debugging"), but the natural phrases a user would say for this actual topic — "stack traces", "minified code", "error tracking", "Sentry" — are missing, and the performance-audit phrasing is not how a user would ask about source maps. Not level 4 because common variations and synonyms for the core topic are absent; not level 2 because several genuinely relevant keywords are present.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"slow page loads, heavy assets, or rendering delays" are generic performance-audit triggers shared by virtually every sibling performance-checklist skill, creating high overlap risk; the only distinctive terms ("source maps", "production debugging") are buried in the garbled embedded title. Not level 1 because source maps plus production debugging do carve out a recognizable niche; not level 3 because the leading triggers would fire for the wrong performance skills far more often than for this one.