Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — it never explains what libraries or documentation are — but the trigger list is duplicated across the intro and 'When to Use This Skill', and the one-topic-per-query rule is restated in Guidelines, giving minor instances that could be trimmed; not a 5 because of that structural repetition.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance names the actual MCP tools (`resolve-library-id`, `query-docs`) with their parameters (`libraryName`, `query`, `libraryId`) and an example ID (`/vercel/next.js`); falls short of 5 because no full invocation example or exact call syntax is shown, leaving a minor gap.

Workflow Clarity

A clear four-step sequence (Resolve → Select → Fetch → Use) with a branching decision point for multi-concept questions; not a 5 because there are no error-recovery feedback loops (e.g., what to do when resolve returns no good match or query-docs returns irrelevant results), though this is a read-only operation so the gap is minor.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is self-contained (no bundle files exist), roughly 50 lines, with clean section headers (When to Use, How to Fetch Documentation, Guidelines) and no nested references; per the simple-skill guideline, a short self-contained skill with well-organized sections scores 5.

Specificity

The description names the domain richly ('libraries, frameworks, API references, code examples') but only describes trigger contexts ('asks about', 'needs code examples', 'Activates for setup questions') rather than concrete actions the skill performs — the actual capability (fetching current documentation via Context7) is never stated, matching 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'.

Completeness

The 'when' is explicit and detailed but the 'what' is missing — scoring only what is stated, the description never says what the skill does (it does not mention fetching documentation), fitting 'only when is present without what'.

Trigger Term Quality

Strong natural keyword coverage including specific framework names users would say ('React, Vue, Next.js, Prisma, Supabase') plus 'setup questions', 'code generation', 'API references'; falls short of 5 because core synonyms like 'documentation'/'docs' and version-related phrasing are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The library/framework documentation niche with named frameworks (React, Vue, Next.js, Prisma, Supabase) is mostly distinct with only minor overlap risk against general coding-assistance skills; not a 5 because 'code generation involving libraries' is broad enough to brush against generic code skills.