Conciseness

The ~88-line body contains only steps, rules, and pointers — no explanations of concepts Claude already knows — and dense operational detail (e.g. the Tessl credit stop rule) is decision-critical rather than padded. Anchor 5 ('lean and efficient; every token earns its place') fits better than 4, which requires over-explanation that could be trimmed, and none is evident.

Actionability

Every step carries an executable command — `git log -1 --format=%H --before="<prompt time>"`, `cp -r "$(readlink -f <this skill's folder>)/assets/template/." <new repository>/`, `./scripts/start_skill.sh <name>`, `python3 ./scripts/validate_eval_criteria.py evals evals-reference evals-regression`, `tessl review run --threshold 100 skills/<name>/SKILL.md` — plus concrete numeric rules (at most three runs, 30-point gap, threshold 100). This matches anchor 5 (fully executable, copy-paste ready); anchor 4 would require minor gaps, and the commands are complete.

Workflow Clarity

Nine numbered steps in a clear sequence with explicit validation checkpoints (validate eval criteria 'until it passes', compare the replay against 'the version that stayed', 'fix every finding') and feedback loops ('fix the skill (never the prompt) and replay again'; 'At most three runs per scenario per change; if a run is stuck or a score does not move, stop and report'), ending in a done-check with required reporting. This matches anchor 5; anchor 4 would mean missing or merely implicit checkpoints, and validation is explicit at every stage.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an overview workflow that keeps detail in four real one-level-deep reference files (all verified present in references/) surfaced through a 'Read it when' table, plus a real assets/template/ bundle whose README is also linked; the references do not chain to further skill documents. This matches anchor 5 (clear overview, well-signaled one-level-deep references, easy navigation) rather than 4, since organization gaps are absent.

Specificity

The description lists six concrete actions — 'captures every correction, scaffolds a repository from a template, writes the skill and at least three evals, replays the first prompt with the skill installed..., scores the evals with and without it, and installs the skill' — which is comprehensive coverage, matching anchor 5 rather than 4 (which requires minor gaps in the action list).

Completeness

It explicitly answers both parts: what ('Builds an Agent Skill with evals out of the current conversation...' with the concrete action list) and when ('Use whenever the user asks to turn this conversation, these corrections, or this fix into a skill...'), plus a concrete exclusion ('Not for writing a skill from scratch with no conversation behind it'). This matches anchor 5; anchor 4 would require the 'when' to be less explicit, and it is not.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrasings are comprehensively covered with synonyms: 'turn this conversation, these corrections, or this fix into a skill', 'make the agent stop repeating a mistake', 'build, create, or extract a skill', 'the agent finally got it right', 'keep doing it this way', and even the no-keyword case ('even if they never say "skill"'). Anchor 5 fits; anchor 4 would require natural terms to be missing, and the trigger clauses anticipate them explicitly.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche — building a skill from an existing conversation's corrections — and explicitly distinguishes its nearest competitor ('Not for writing a skill from scratch with no conversation behind it'), with triggers tied to conversation-specific phrasing. Minimal conflict risk, matching anchor 5 rather than 4, since there is no meaningful overlap with related skills.