Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes Claude's competence — vocabulary is delegated to the codebase-design skill and dependency-cruiser is never explained — but barrel-file discouragement is repeated in three places ("Entry points, not a barrel", step 7, and Notes) and the four rules are stated then re-referenced. Fits anchor 4 (efficient with minor trimmable redundancy); not 5 due to the repetition, not 3 because there is no padded concept explanation.

Actionability

Steps include concrete lockfile-to-package-manager mapping, the `lint:boundaries` script, and an exact violation probe (`import { thing } from "../lib/impl"`), but step 3's core instruction — copying `./dependency-cruiser.config.cjs` — references a file that is absent from the bundle, and the four rules exist only as prose with the `$1` back-reference implementation never shown. The skill cannot be executed as written; fits anchor 3 (concrete guidance but missing key details); not 4 because a critical artifact is missing rather than a minor gap, not 2 because most steps are specific and runnable.

Workflow Clarity

Seven sequenced steps each end in an explicit "Done when" checkpoint, and step 6 is a full validation feedback loop: clean example must pass, an injected deep import must fail with `tests-through-entrypoints`, revert must pass again — with an explicit recovery directive to fix the wiring before proceeding. Matches anchor 5 (explicit validation steps, error-recovery loop, per-step checklists); not 4 because checkpoints are comprehensive rather than having minor gaps.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned and the single reference (the config file) is clearly signaled and one level deep, but scored against the actual bundle: the directory contains only SKILL.md, so the sole referenced path `dependency-cruiser.config.cjs` does not resolve and the intended split is never realized. Sits between anchors 3 and 4 — the dangling sole reference is more than a minor organization gap, though the reference itself is not buried.

Specificity

Names the domain and several concrete actions ("接入 dependency-cruiser", "implementation 隐藏在 subfolders 中", "只能通过 entry-point files 访问"), but omits operational specifics like writing enforcement rules, wiring checks, and verification. Fits anchor 4 (several specific actions, minor gaps); not 5 because coverage of what the skill actually does is incomplete, not 3 because it goes beyond 1-2 actions.

Completeness

The "what" is clear (integrate dependency-cruiser to make each package a deep module with entry-point-only access), but the only trigger guidance is "User-invoked.", which is an invocation-mode flag rather than a "Use when..." clause. Per the rubric guideline, a missing explicit trigger clause caps completeness at 3; not 4 without an explicit when, not 2 because the what is concrete.

Trigger Term Quality

Contains strong domain terms ("dependency-cruiser", "deep module", "entry-point files") but misses the natural phrasings users would say such as "package/module boundaries", "import restrictions", or "architecture rules". Fits anchor 3 (relevant keywords, missing common variations); not 4 because coverage is narrow, not 2 because the terms are specific rather than generic.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche combining a specific tool ("dependency-cruiser"), a specific architecture concept ("deep module"), and a specific access convention ("entry-point files") in TypeScript repos — minimal overlap with any generic linting or setup skill. Matches anchor 5; not 4 because no meaningful conflict risk is identifiable.