Conciseness

The ~38-line body is dense with skill-specific policy and contains no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every sentence ('Preserve existing entities, IDs, native guards and provider-managed state/defaults') carries non-obvious guidance. It assumes Claude's competence and matches 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place'.

Actionability

The five-step workflow gives concrete instructions ('trace the affected entities, IDs, auth, credentials, queries and workers') and the worked example uses real specifics ('GET/PATCH /projects/:projectId/notes/:noteId', 'requireOwnedProject(actor, projectId)'). However much of the body is policy-level principle ('no owner column at every step, team/role engine or mirrored billing ledger by default') rather than executable instruction, fitting 'mostly executable guidance with minor gaps' rather than fully copy-paste ready.

Workflow Clarity

Inspect, Map, Resolve, Record and act, Verify and report form a clear sequence with an explicit feedback loop ('If a check fails, correct the bounded mapping/implementation and rerun affected checks') and validation checkpoints ('Mark these checks proposed until run', 'Report actual results or mark checks unrun'). Delayed-work authority rechecks are also explicit, matching the anchor for clear sequence with explicit validation and error-recovery loops.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview pointing to 13 real one-level-deep reference files, each bullet clearly signaling its topic and usage condition ('Email unsubscribe ... only when affected') with apt deep links (e.g. background-work.md#persist-first-then-enrich-the-entity). All referenced files exist in the bundle and cross-links between them are lateral, not nested chains, matching 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references'.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('Map private customer access onto an existing personal app') and several concrete deliverables ('a short host-specific plan, implementation guidance and checks') plus a scope exclusion ('Skip new-app scaffolding and SDK mechanics'). It falls between anchor 3 (only 1-2 actions) and anchor 5 (comprehensive action coverage), fitting 'several specific actions; minor gaps'.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: 'what' (map private customer access onto an existing personal app with a plan, guidance and checks) and 'when' ('Use when login/authentication, ... need connecting to existing entities and workflows') with concrete trigger phrases. This matches the anchor-5 example structure exactly.

Trigger Term Quality

The when-clause lists natural terms users would say: 'login/authentication, multi-tenant isolation, customer-owned connections, background imports, subscription billing, service credits or admin screens'. Coverage is good but misses common synonyms and product names (SSO/OAuth, teams/workspaces, Stripe), so it fits 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' rather than comprehensive.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear (retrofitting customer access onto an existing personal app, not new-app scaffolding), and triggers like 'multi-tenant isolation' and 'service credits' are distinctive. However 'login/authentication' and 'admin screens' are broad terms that overlap generic auth/admin skills, so it fits 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' rather than minimal conflict risk.