Conciseness

Mostly efficient, but there is real duplication: the "When to Use This Skill" bullet list restates the opening line almost verbatim, and the Guidelines item "One topic per query: Split multi-topic questions into separate query-docs calls... unless the question is about how the concepts interact" repeats Step 3's multi-concept paragraph word-for-word. This fits 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened'; it is not a 2 because there is no concept-explanation padding (nothing teaches what a library or MCP is), and not a 4 because the duplicated sections are noticeable, not minor.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance: exact tool names with parameters ("Call `resolve-library-id` with: `libraryName`, `query`"; "Call `query-docs` with: `libraryId`, `query`"), an example ID format ("/vercel/next.js"), and explicit match-selection criteria. Minor gaps keep it at 4 rather than 5: no example invocation payloads or sample responses, and no guidance for the no-match/ambiguous-match case.

Workflow Clarity

A clear four-step sequence (resolve library ID → select best match → fetch docs → use docs) with decision criteria at each step (exact match, benchmark scores, version-specific IDs, one-concept-per-query). Minor validation gaps — e.g., what to do when resolution returns no good match — hold it at 4 rather than 5; it is well above a 3 because the sequence is unambiguous with explicit selection checkpoints, and this read-only lookup involves no destructive or batch operations requiring feedback loops.

Progressive Disclosure

A compact single-file skill (~40 non-blank body lines) with no references/, scripts/, or assets/ bundle and no content that belongs in separate files, organized under clean headers (When to Use / How to Fetch Documentation / Guidelines). Per the rubric's small-skill allowance, well-organized sections with no need for external references score 5; nothing is inlined that should be split out and navigation is trivial.

Specificity

The description names its domain clearly ("libraries, frameworks, API references, or needs code examples") but states no concrete actions at all — nothing like "fetches current documentation" or "retrieves API references". It matches the anchor 'names the domain but actions are minimal or generic' (here, absent) rather than score 1, since it is not pure abstract language, and not score 3, since no 1-2 concrete actions are actually listed.

Completeness

Only the 'when' is present: "Activates for setup questions, code generation involving libraries, or mentions of specific frameworks". The 'what' — that the skill fetches current library documentation via Context7 — is entirely absent, matching the score-2 anchor 'only when is present without what' ("Use when working with documents"-style). It cannot be a 3 because the 'what' is not weakly implied; it is missing, and the skill's actual mechanism (Context7 MCP tools) is never named.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: "setup questions", "code generation", "API references", and concrete framework names ("React, Vue, Next.js, Prisma, Supabase") that users would actually say. A few natural terms are missing ("docs", "documentation", "SDK", "how to use X"), so it falls short of the comprehensive-with-synonyms anchor at 5 but is well above the 'some relevant keywords' level of 3.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Triggers like "code generation involving libraries" and "needs code examples" fire on almost any modern coding request, creating high overlap risk with general coding and framework-specific skills. This matches the anchor 'very broad; high overlap risk with many similar skills'; it is not a 3 because the overlap is not limited to closely-related skills, and not a 1 because the framework names and API-reference focus provide some specificity.