Conciseness

The body is efficient and imperative with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, but several gate rules are stated redundantly — the Mode A opening line appears in Output gates, the Mode A section, and a code block, and the six-line Mode C contract is described twice and shown once. Not a 5 because this duplication could be trimmed; not a 3 because there is no padding or unnecessary explanation.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: copy-paste-ready scanner invocations with all flag variants (--compare-root, --archive, --metadata/--metadata-root), the render command, exact opening lines and contract templates, the exact Markdown/JSON/HTML/Verification handoff block, and concrete policy-verification URLs. Specific examples cover the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

The workflow is clearly sequenced (Discover → Establish review scope → Review iOS 27) with explicit validation checkpoints: a read-only first pass requiring approval before edits, an output-gate checklist verified literally before saving, a false-positive review loop over scanner findings, offline fallback contingencies, and dual-width visual inspection of the rendered report. This matches the anchor-5 pattern of sequence plus feedback loops plus checklists.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a genuine overview: a mode-routing table names exactly which reference files to load per mode, and all 11 references and 3 scripts listed under Packaged resources exist on disk and are one level deep (references cross-link only to siblings and external Apple URLs, with no nested content chains). Not a 4 because navigation, signaling, and the file split are all clean.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete review activities spanning the full submission lifecycle — "App Store submission, TestFlight readiness, rejection recovery, Resolution Center replies, Guideline 4.3 similarity, or product craft" plus "audits of native interaction, motion, gestures, materials, haptics, and iPad adaptation" — with no coverage gaps. It is not a 4 because the action list is comprehensive rather than having minor gaps, and it uses third-person voice so no voice penalty applies.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what (the enumerated review activities and covered areas) and when ("Use when reviewing iOS or iPadOS apps for..." plus concrete example requests). Not a 4 because the 'when' is explicit with concrete trigger phrases rather than merely present or vague.

Trigger Term Quality

It covers natural terms comprehensively, including synonyms and literal user phrasings: "App Store submission", "TestFlight", "rejection", "Resolution Center", "Guideline 4.3", "Xcode, Expo, React Native, and Flutter", and the quoted requests "review my app" and "will Apple approve this". Not a 4 because no common variation a user would naturally say is missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It occupies a clear niche — Apple App Store review for iOS/iPadOS — with highly distinct triggers such as TestFlight, Resolution Center, and Guideline 4.3 that would not fire a generic development or design skill. Not a 4 because the overlap risk with related skills is minimal, not merely minor.