Conciseness

The body is dense, project-specific decision rules with zero padding — "Swagger 2.0 fails", "Standalone SSE and stdio servers fail", "Do not use `npm test -- recipes.server`. It also runs the Storybook tests, which match no file and exit 1" — and it assumes competence, never explaining OpenAPI, MCP, YAML or testing basics. Every token earns its place, matching anchor 5 rather than 4, which would require instances of over-explanation to trim.

Actionability

Fully actionable throughout: copy-paste commands (`npm ci --prefix apps/reef`, `npx vitest run --project server recipes.server`, `npm run check --prefix apps/reef`), an exact id pattern (`[a-z][a-z0-9_]*`), an exact schema header line, precise source checks ("Confirm a 200 with no redirect, and an `openapi` field of `3.0.x` or `3.1.x`"), and exact live-test steps with a concrete URL. As an instruction-only skill with concrete, specific guidance, it meets anchor 5; there are no pseudocode stand-ins or missing key details that would drop it to 4.

Workflow Clarity

Six clearly sequenced sections with explicit checkpoints — "Done when you hold at least one usable source URL", an approval gate ("Show the user a short plan and wait for their approval"), a test-fix feedback loop ("Run, and fix until both pass"), and direct per-source verification steps. This matches anchor 5 (explicit validation, feedback loops); the recipe-writing task is not destructive or batch, so the workflow-clarity cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a workflow overview that delegates all format and design detail to clearly signaled, one-level-deep references: `GLOSSARY.md` (the Provider Recipe entry), ADRs 0002-0004, `apps/reef/recipes/schema.json` ("Its `description` fields are the field docs"), and example recipes (`linear`, `github`, `sentry`) each annotated with what it demonstrates. No bundle files exist to inline, the references are not nested, and reusing existing repo docs instead of duplicating them matches anchor 5's well-signaled, easy-to-navigate structure.

Specificity

Names the domain and two actions — "Research an upstream service" and "write a Provider Recipe for it in apps/reef/recipes" — but "research" is generic and the coverage of what the skill actually does is not comprehensive. Anchor 3 fits best: 1-2 concrete actions with gaps, rather than the several specific actions required for 4.

Completeness

The "what" is clear (research a service, write a recipe, where it lives), but there is no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not 4 because the "when" is entirely absent rather than merely imprecise.

Trigger Term Quality

"Provider Recipe", "upstream service" and "apps/reef/recipes" are relevant niche terms, but natural variations a user would say ("add a recipe", "new provider", "integrate a service", service names like Notion) are missing. This matches anchor 3 — some relevant keywords, missing common variations or synonyms — rather than 4's good coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Provider Recipe for it in apps/reef/recipes" names a highly specific artifact, format and location — a clear niche with minimal conflict risk against any other skill. It matches anchor 5 exactly; anchor 4's "minor overlap risk with closely related skills" does not apply since no plausible competing skill shares these triggers.