Conciseness

The body is dense, imperative policy with no padding and no explanations of concepts Claude already knows ('Missing data is "Not reported by provider," not zero'; 'Two workspace-write processes are never allowed'). Every section carries only non-obvious project-specific rules. Not 4 because there are no instances of over-explanation to trim.

Actionability

Concrete commands appear where they exist ('codex login', 'claude auth login --claudeai', 'MULTI_FRONTIER_PROOF.md') and the rules are specific and executable as policy ('at most one revision per participant per round', 'Stop after three rounds'). Not 5 because most sections give behavioral constraints without a worked example (e.g. a sample checkpoint or proposal artifact), and not 3 because the guidance is concrete and directly executable, not pseudocode-level.

Workflow Clarity

The collaboration workflow is a clearly numbered 8-step sequence with explicit gates (GO decision, write-lease grant/revocation, immutable checkpoints, recovery records) and a dedicated Verification section with concrete checks ('Prove stale driver generations, duplicate events, and concurrent write turns are rejected'; 'Run focused Desktop tests/typecheck, format modified files, and record packaged-runner and installed-app evidence'). Validation is present, so the destructive-operation cap does not apply; not 4 because checkpoints and verification are explicit rather than implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well-organized (Rule, Before, Collaboration workflow, Helper/quota, Persistence/UI, Verification, Don't, Related Skills) with no nested or dead references — verified against the actual bundle, which contains no references/, scripts/, or assets/ files. Not 5 because at ~113 lines it exceeds the simple-skill threshold and dense policy areas (helper and quota policy, persistence schema rules) could be split into one-level-deep reference files; not 3 because nothing is misfiled or buried.

Specificity

Names the domain concretely ('Desktop Code Agents Multi-Frontier workflow') with 1-2 actions ('Run or extend'), matching the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions' anchor. It is not a 4 because the verbs are generic and the enumerated items (checkpoints, usage meters) are topics rather than specific actions; not a 2 because the domain and scope are far more concrete than 'Processes PDF files'.

Completeness

Clearly answers what ('Run or extend the Desktop Code Agents Multi-Frontier workflow') and when with an explicit 'Use when coordinating...' clause listing concrete trigger phrases, mirroring the anchor-5 example structure. Not 4 because the 'when' is already explicit and specific rather than merely present.

Trigger Term Quality

'Codex and Claude Code subscriptions, collaboration phases, checkpoints, recovery, usage meters' gives good keyword coverage a user would naturally say, though a few natural terms are missing (e.g. multi-agent, write lease, auto-continue) and 'helper admission' is internal jargon. Not 5 because no synonyms or common variations are covered; not 3 because coverage clearly exceeds 'some relevant keywords'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It occupies a clear niche (two-subscription desktop agent orchestration) with distinct triggers ('Codex and Claude Code subscriptions', 'checkpoints', 'usage meters'), so conflict with generic skills is minimal. Not 4 because no closely related skill would plausibly capture these triggers.