Conciseness

The body is mostly lean (checklists, commands, templates) but includes avoidable duplication: the .env/.gitignore rules appear both in the scaffold checklist and again in dedicated sections, and two overlapping templates ("Frontmatter template" and "Minimal skill template") repeat each other; awkward phrasing ("This should trigger this scaffold", "skills that are self-buildable") could also be tightened. It is not anchor 4 because several of these redundancies are noticeable, and not anchor 2 because there is no padding explaining concepts Claude already knows.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance dominates: the bash command "mkdir -p .opencode/skills/<skill-name>", an explicit minimum-scaffold file list, and copy-ready YAML/markdown templates with specific rules ("create a `.env.example` without credentials", "Always add a `.gitignore`... that ignores `.env`"). It falls short of anchor 5 only because the "Minimal skill template" contains bare placeholders ("command here", "Action 1") and there is no worked example of a finished generated skill.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is discernible (create folder → add scaffold files → apply scaffold rules → validate description → verify .env not tracked) with real checkpoints ("Quick validation" checklist, "verify `.env` is not tracked"). It is not anchor 5 because there are no error-recovery feedback loops (what to do when validation fails), and the ordering scatters workflow steps between template sections rather than presenting one coherent ordered procedure.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, and the ~97-line body is organized into clear, well-labeled sections (scaffold rules, trigger phrases, templates, .env, notes, reference) with a single external link clearly signaled ("Follow the official OpenCode skills docs"). It is below anchor 5 because the content exceeds simple-skill scale with some redundancy and interleaved template sections that could be consolidated, though no references are buried and nothing requires deep navigation.

Specificity

"Create new OpenCode skills with the standard scaffold" names the domain (OpenCode skills) and 1-2 concrete actions (create skills, apply a standard scaffold), but coverage is not comprehensive. It sits above anchor 2 ("Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic" like "Processes PDF files") because the deliverable (standard scaffold) adds a second concrete element, and below anchor 4 because it does not list several specific actions.

Completeness

The "what" is clearly stated (create OpenCode skills with the standard scaffold), but the "when" is entirely missing — there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the rubric guidelines. It is not anchor 4 or 5 because neither an explicit nor implicit usage condition appears in the description itself.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant domain keywords are present ("Create", "OpenCode skills", "scaffold") which map to what a user would say ("create a skill"), but common variations and synonyms ("make a skill", "new skill", "skill template", "scaffold a skill") are absent. It matches anchor 3 ("Some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms") rather than anchor 4, which requires broader natural-term coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Create new OpenCode skills" occupies a clear, distinct niche (skill authoring/scaffolding) that would rarely conflict with ordinary task skills, though it could overlap with other meta/scaffolding skills. It falls below anchor 5 because the anchor example pairs the niche with distinct explicit trigger phrases, which this description lacks; it is above anchor 3 because the domain is specific rather than broadly overlapping.