Conciseness

The body never explains concepts Claude already knows (no "what is Flutter" or "how hot reload works" padding) and every sentence encodes a constraint or decision rule, e.g. "Do not infer a root cause from the last stack frame, a screenshot, or a downstream assertion alone". It assumes competence throughout, matching the lean anchor rather than the minor-over-explanation anchor 4.

Actionability

Guidance is specific and executable at the decision level — "perform a full rebuild and clean-process launch on every affected supported target", "Change one relevant variable at a time", "Use Dart and Flutter MCP capabilities... otherwise rely on DevTools and CLI output" — but the body contains no copy-paste commands (e.g. `flutter attach`, `flutter run --profile`); concrete commands live only in the reference files. This sits between anchor 3 (missing key details) and anchor 5 (copy-paste ready), so 4.

Workflow Clarity

The opening line states the sequence ("Turn a reported symptom into a repeatable failure, identify the first incorrect state... apply the smallest supported fix, and repeat the same flow as evidence") and the sections follow it, with explicit checkpoints: record trigger/expected/actual, "require the first incorrect transition at every implicated boundary", one-variable-at-a-time experiments, and a Verification section that repeats the original flow and states "anything not reproduced or verified". Error-recovery loops and gap reporting are explicit, matching anchor 5.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview with two well-signaled, conditionally-loaded references — "Read [reproduction and attachment](references/reproduction-and-attachment.md) when..." and "Read [DevTools diagnosis](references/devtools-diagnosis.md) when..." — both of which exist in the bundle, are one level deep, and contain the appropriately-split detail (the body's boundaries/verification summary vs. the references' procedures). No nesting beyond one level, so anchor 5 rather than the minor-gaps anchor 4.

Specificity

"Reproduce, inspect, diagnose, and fix Flutter failures in a running app using logs, debugger attachment, DevTools, framework diagnostics, and minimal experiments" lists four concrete lifecycle actions plus the evidence modalities, matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor. It is not a 4 because coverage of the debugging lifecycle (reproduce → diagnose → fix) is complete rather than having minor gaps.

Completeness

The "what" is concrete ("Reproduce, inspect, diagnose, and fix Flutter failures in a running app...") and the "when" is an explicit "Use for..." clause with concrete trigger conditions, matching the anchor-5 example structure. Not a 4 because the when-clause is fully explicit, not merely present-but-imprecise.

Trigger Term Quality

Explicit triggers "runtime exceptions, incorrect live state, hangs, lifecycle failures, or failures that require execution evidence" are natural user phrases with good coverage. It falls short of 5 because common synonyms users say — "crash", "freeze", "error", "bug" — are absent, and "hangs" only partially covers the freeze family.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description carves a clear niche (runtime failures requiring execution evidence in a running app) and actively routes adjacent work away: "route benchmarked jank to flutter-performance and planned device-flow verification to flutter-device-testing". This explicit disambiguation gives minimal conflict risk, exceeding the mostly-distinct anchor 4.