Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient, but the 24-line ASCII architecture diagram and the key-components glossary table ('Command: Intent to change state') restate textbook CQRS concepts Claude already knows, fitting anchor 3's 'some unnecessary explanation that could be tightened' rather than anchor 4's merely minor over-explanation.

Actionability

The body contains no executable code, commands, or concrete steps — the best-practice bullets ('Denormalize read models', 'Version your events') are high-level directives, with all concrete templates delegated to references/details.md. This matches anchor 2 ('minimal concrete guidance; high-level hints but missing specific steps'), not anchor 1, since the reference pointer and component table give some concrete grounding.

Workflow Clarity

There is a rough conceptual progression (architecture, components, templates, practices) but no sequenced implementation workflow and no validation checkpoints, matching anchor 2's 'rough sequence present but many gaps' rather than anchor 3's clearly listed steps.

Progressive Disclosure

The 79-line body is a lean overview that clearly signals a single, verified, one-level-deep reference ('Full template library and detailed worked examples live in references/details.md'), with content appropriately split between the overview and the 475-line template file — a direct match for anchor 5.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('Command Query Responsibility Segregation') with one concrete action ('Implement') but offers no additional specific actions, matching the '1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive' anchor rather than anchor 4's 'several specific actions'.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both 'what' ('Implement Command Query Responsibility Segregation for scalable architectures') and 'when' ('Use when separating read and write models, optimizing query performance, or building event-sourced systems') with concrete trigger phrases, matching anchor 5; anchor 4 would require a weaker or less explicit 'when' clause.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases like 'separating read and write models', 'optimizing query performance', and 'building event-sourced systems' are phrases users would actually say, but the acronym 'CQRS' and common synonyms (e.g. 'event sourcing', 'read/write model') are missing, falling short of anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

CQRS is a clear niche with distinct triggers, but 'building event-sourced systems' could overlap with a dedicated event-sourcing skill, giving minor overlap risk consistent with anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's minimal conflict risk.