Conciseness

The body re-explains concepts Claude already knows at length: full SOLID definitions ("LSP: subtypes must be usable through the base type interface"), component principles (REP/CCP/CRP/ADP), repository pattern basics, and "Why it works" rationale paragraphs for each section. It also carries clearly padded sections unrelated to skill execution — an "About the Author" biography of Robert C. Martin and a book-marketing "Further Reading" section — matching anchor 2 (noticeably verbose; several unnecessary explanations or padded sections) rather than 3, since well over a third of the ~200-line body re-teaches known material.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill, the guidance is concrete: named interface patterns ("`UserRepository` interface in Use Cases; `PostgresUserRepository` in Adapters"), specific request models ("`CreateOrderRequest { items, customerId }`"), a stability formula ("I = Ce / (Ca + Ce)"), and a Common Mistakes table with concrete fixes. It falls short of 5 because examples are one-line illustrative fragments rather than complete, copy-ready code or commands with minor gaps covered.

Workflow Clarity

The pieces of a procedure exist — a Quick Diagnostic checklist ("If No → Action") and a Scoring protocol ("rate it 0-10... Always provide the current score and specific improvements needed to reach 10/10") — but no explicit sequence ties them together; the reader must infer diagnose → score → recommend. This matches anchor 3 (sequence present but checkpoints implicit/not assembled into a stated workflow); the diagnostic checklist keeps it above 2.

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is good: six reference files exist, each is linked one level deep from its section ("See: [references/dependency-rule.md]") and indexed in a Reference Files section with descriptions, and no reference points to further files. It falls short of 5 because the SKILL.md body itself runs ~200 lines with substantial conceptual content (key insights, why-it-works, definitions) that substantially duplicates the reference files, so the split between overview and detail is not as clean as the anchor-5 quick-start pattern.

Specificity

The description gives one concrete action — "Structure software around the Dependency Rule: source code dependencies point inward from frameworks to use cases to entities" — plus a topic scope statement ("Covers component principles, boundaries, and SOLID"), but topic names are not concrete actions. It clearly matches anchor 3 (domain plus 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive) rather than 4, which requires several distinct actions like the PDF example's "extracts text, fills forms, converts pages".

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the "what" is stated first ("Structure software around the Dependency Rule..."), and the "when" uses a literal "Use when the user mentions [phrase list]" clause with concrete trigger phrases plus additional "Also trigger when..." conditions. This is the anchor-5 example pattern verbatim; score 4 would require the "when" to be less explicit, which it is not.

Trigger Term Quality

Trigger coverage is comprehensive with abundant synonyms users actually say: "architecture layers", "dependency rule", "ports and adapters", "hexagonal architecture", "use case boundary", "onion architecture", "screaming architecture", "framework independence", plus behavioral triggers like "decoupling business logic from databases" and "debating where to put business rules". This matches the anchor-5 pattern of comprehensive natural terms including synonyms (no file extensions are relevant for a conceptual skill).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear (clean architecture with distinctive triggers like "hexagonal/onion/screaming architecture") and it proactively routes near-conflicts ("For code quality, see clean-code. For domain modeling, see domain-driven-design"). However, claiming "Covers... SOLID" and "boundaries" leaves minor overlap with a code-quality skill like clean-code, which is only partially disambiguated, placing it between anchors 4 and 5 rather than clearly at 5.