Conciseness

The ~30-line body is lean and assumes Claude's competence: no explanation of what Flutter or architecture patterns are, no padded sections, and every line states a rule or a decision criterion (e.g., "Add use cases/domain services only when logic is reused, complex, or otherwise clutters presentation state"). It is tighter than the 4 anchor's "minor instances of over-explanation".

Actionability

As an instruction-only skill the guidance is concrete — "Views render state and forward user intent; keep data access and business rules outside widgets" and "Point dependencies inward through explicit interfaces" are specific, checkable rules, and conditional loading of the reference files is directed. It is not 5 because nothing is copy-paste ready: no example feature folder layout, command, or code snippet is given in the body.

Workflow Clarity

A coherent sequence is present — inspect existing structure ("Preserve before migrating"), extend rather than replace, migrate incrementally for a concrete problem, then verify — and the Verification section provides explicit checkpoints ("Demonstrate the dependency path for one feature... confirm no circular or UI-to-infrastructure shortcuts were introduced"). It is not 5 because the steps are implied by section order rather than explicitly sequenced, and migration detail is deferred to a reference file.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview that moves detail into two real, one-level-deep reference files, each signaled with a clear load condition: "Load [greenfield and evolution](references/greenfield-and-evolution.md) for new-project choices or incremental migrations" and "Load [feature boundaries and dependency rules](references/feature-boundaries-and-dependency-rules.md) when modules leak across features or ownership is unclear". Both files exist, do not nest further references, and content is appropriately split.

Specificity

"Select, review, or evolve Flutter application boundaries, dependency direction, and feature organization" names the domain and lists several concrete actions. It falls short of 5 because the action objects are architectural abstractions rather than file-level operations, and coverage has minor gaps (e.g., state-management selection and dependency injection are not named).

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the "what" is "Select, review, or evolve Flutter application boundaries, dependency direction, and feature organization" and the "when" is "Use for new project structure, scaling problems, or architecture migrations" with concrete trigger phrases. The negative trigger "do not impose a new pattern during a focused feature fix" further sharpens the when.

Trigger Term Quality

"new project structure", "scaling problems", and "architecture migrations" are natural phrases users would say, alongside "Flutter". A few common variations are missing — notably "clean architecture", "folder structure", and "refactor" — so it is not comprehensive enough for 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Flutter application boundaries, dependency direction, and feature organization" carves a clear niche with distinct triggers, and the explicit Flutter scoping minimizes conflict with non-Flutter skills. The negative boundary clause ("do not impose a new pattern during a focused feature fix") also disambiguates it from general code-review or refactoring skills, keeping conflict risk minimal.