Conciseness

At ~600 lines the body restates the same rules in several places: eye/never-remove rules appear in Phase 0 ("add it before investigation and never remove it"), the Reaction gate ("Never remove reactions"), and Phase 1 ("Reapply Phase 0 eye/checkmark rules"); the subjective-UI/upvote scope rules appear in both "Classification rules" and the claim section; skip/out-of-scope handling is repeated across Phase 0, Classification, and Phase 3. This matches the noticeably-verbose anchor (several padded/redundant sections). It is not level 1, since it does not explain concepts Claude already knows — the content is novel operational policy — and not level 3, because the redundancy goes beyond 'some unnecessary explanation'.

Actionability

Largely executable guidance: exact search invocations ("slack_search: \"this was sent from a bot.\" in:<#CHANNEL> sort=timestamp sort_dir=asc include_context=true max_context_length=300"), concrete channel IDs ("C0ATH3CCZT4"), a fixed disposition vocabulary, a fill-in recap table, and runnable commands ("git apply -R", "node scripts/agent-friction-report.mjs --weeks 2 --pattern <key>", "corepack pnpm ship:push"). Minor gaps keep it below fully-executable: some directives are abstract ("fix the owning local seam", "fix discovery, registry, or action wiring") and referenced scripts/skills are not in this bundle. It clearly exceeds the level-3 pseudocode/incomplete anchor.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is explicit and ordered ("Four phases, in order. Phase 0 comes before any investigation"), with explicit validation checkpoints throughout: the four Fixed bars, Red/Green regression proof ("reverse-apply hunk with git apply -R, record failure, reapply, record pass"), the 3-question budget, the per-row reproduction ledger, and error-recovery branches (4-day abandonment, repeat-refix protocol). The recap template acts as a checklist for a complex process. This matches the level-5 anchor with explicit validation, feedback loops, and checklists; validation for batch/reply operations is present, so the level-3 cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well-headered and delegates method detail to other skills ("Before changing code, read fix-at-the-boundary, verifying-changes, and concurrent-agents"), which is genuine one-level disclosure. But no bundle files exist, and the document remains a single monolithic ~600-line wall: the disposition vocabulary, the recap template, and the per-source procedures (GitHub/Sentry/Analytics query details, publishing rules) are all inlined when they would fit reference files, and the "Related skills" section is a bare list of names with no guidance. This matches the some-structure-but-could-be-better-organized anchor — above the minimal-structure anchor (2) because sectioning and delegation exist, below the good-structure anchor (4) because substantial separable content stays inline.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete, comprehensive actions: "first answer reporters, then fix verified bugs and actionable objective UI defects at the owning boundary, require human signoff for subjective UI changes, build features the invoking user endorsed with an :upvote:, and recap every disposition", and enumerates the exact sources ("Slack, GitHub issue, Sentry, first-party Agent-Native Analytics error issues, and explicitly linked tracker feedback"). This matches the anchor for multiple specific concrete actions with comprehensive coverage; it is not merely naming a domain with 1-2 actions (4) or generic actions (3).

Completeness

Both 'what' and 'when' are present: the what is concrete and multi-part, and the trigger clause "Use for scheduled or manual sweeps." is explicit. However, the 'when' is narrow — it names only sweep scheduling and omits concrete trigger phrases like 'use when the user asks to review or respond to feedback/bug reports'. This lands on the anchor where both exist but 'when' could be more explicit, not the level-5 anchor requiring concrete trigger phrases for both.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage — "Slack", "GitHub issue", "Sentry", "feedback", "sweeps" — plus niche triggers like ":upvote:". A few natural terms users would say are missing (e.g., "triage", "respond to bug reports", "follow up on reports"), and "Agent-Native Analytics" is product jargon. This fits the anchor of good keyword coverage with a few natural terms missing, below the comprehensive-with-synonyms anchor (5) and clearly above the some-relevant-keywords anchor (3).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche — sweeping named feedback sources (Slack channels, GitHub issues, Sentry projects, Agent-Native Analytics) with product-specific gates (":upvote:", "owning boundary", "human signoff for subjective UI changes") — makes mis-triggering against generic skills very unlikely. This matches the clear-niche, minimal-conflict anchor; the adjacent anchor (4, minor overlap with closely related skills) is too weak given how specific the trigger surface is.