Conciseness

Lean and dense throughout — no padding and no explanations of concepts Claude already knows; every sentence carries tool-specific facts ('Zero-parameter criteria auto-register', 'all-pass, any-pass, and required-pass count a score as passing only when it is 1.0', the network_mode baseline/override semantics). Not 4 because no instance of over-explanation was found to trim; the length is informational, not verbosity.

Actionability

Fully executable, copy-paste-ready examples cover the common cases: the 'uvx --from 'harbor-rewardkit==0.2.*' rewardkit /tests' test.sh, Python criteria with '@criterion' and parameterized calls, judge TOMLs for LLM/agent/JEV judges, and reward.toml aggregation snippets with expected JSON outputs. Not 4 because the examples are complete and executable as written, not just fragments with gaps.

Workflow Clarity

Sections form a coherent sequence (setup → programmatic → custom → judges → scoring → multi-reward → multi-step → selection guide) with most checkpoints present: output files are documented ('/logs/verifier/reward-details.json — per-criterion results, judge reasoning, errors') and risky behaviors are flagged (isolated=True to avoid corrupting the workspace). Not 5 because there is no explicit validation/feedback loop for locally running and debugging a verifier before a Harbor run; not 3 because the sequence and checkpoints are clearly better than implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-sectioned with clear headers, but roughly 340 lines of exhaustive reference material — the full built-ins list, the dense '[judge]' options paragraph, all aggregation modes, and multi-step semantics — are fully inlined in SKILL.md with no bundle files at all (the only pointer is external: 'See examples/tasks/reward-kit-example/ in the Harbor repo'). This matches the anchor 'content that should be separate is inline'; not 4 because there are no well-signaled one-level-deep references to offset the inlined volume.

Specificity

Lists several concrete actions — 'creating or editing a task's tests/ directory, adding grading criteria, setting up LLM/agent judges, or designing verifiers that produce a reward score' — each a specific capability. Falls short of 5 because major capabilities from the body (programmatic built-in checks, scoring aggregation, multi-reward subdirectories) are not surfaced, leaving minor coverage gaps; well above 3, which expects only 1-2 concrete actions.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what — 'Write Harbor task verifiers using Reward Kit' — and when — 'Use when creating or editing a task's tests/ directory, adding grading criteria, setting up LLM/agent judges, or designing verifiers that produce a reward score.' The explicit 'Use when' clause with concrete trigger phrases matches the top anchor; not 4 because the 'when' is already fully explicit and specific.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases users would say are present: 'task's tests/ directory', 'grading criteria', 'LLM/agent judges', 'verifiers that produce a reward score'. A few natural synonyms and variations ('reward function', 'rubric', 'test suite', 'score a task') are missing, so it matches 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' rather than the comprehensive synonym-level coverage of 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clearly delimited by 'Harbor task verifiers' and 'Reward Kit' with triggers tied to 'tests/ directory' and verifier/judge setup — terms unlikely to appear when other skills are needed, giving minimal conflict risk.