Conciseness

Every sentence is an instruction or constraint with zero padding — e.g. "Write agent-tooling scripts and tests in TypeScript and execute them with Bun; do not add `.mjs` or Node entrypoints" packs language, runtime, and a prohibition into one line. It fully assumes Claude's competence; no concept explanations exist to trim, so it does not fit the anchor 4 pattern of removable over-explanation.

Actionability

Concrete specifics throughout — "update `nextStep` and `blocker` in its local `task.json`", "Private task data and command output stay under ignored `.artifacts/`", "never attach them wholesale to a PR" — but the literal executable commands (e.g. `bun run agent:task init ...`) live only in the linked reference file. Mostly executable guidance with minor gaps in the body itself, so not the copy-paste-ready level 5; well above the missing-key-details level 3 because file names, fields, and tool choices are explicit.

Workflow Clarity

The four numbered steps give a clear sequence with explicit validation gates — "Read the receipt and its boundary before reporting what passed", "refresh external issue, PR and CI state before acting", "A passing profile establishes only its named checks" — plus a feedback loop in "Prove the check rejects the original mistake". Verification checkpoints are explicit and recurring, matching the top anchor rather than the minor-gaps anchor 4.

Progressive Disclosure

The ~25-line body is a pure overview that defers all operational detail to a single well-signaled, one-level-deep reference — "Use [the verification map](references/verification-map.md) to select the existing checks and preserve a task's goal, authority, next step and blockers across sessions" — and that file exists in the bundle and delivers exactly the promised material (profile table, task commands, receipt semantics). Content is appropriately split with easy navigation; no buried references or inlined material that belongs elsewhere.

Specificity

Lists four concrete actions — "Maintain resumable task records", "select repository verification profiles", "inspect revision-bound receipts", "carry work between coding agents" — matching the several-specific-actions anchor with only minor gaps. Not a 5 because phrases like "revision-bound receipts" and "verification profiles" are abstract labels rather than plainly concrete operations, leaving coverage slightly short of comprehensive.

Completeness

Clearly answers both: a multi-action "what" ("Maintain resumable task records, select repository verification profiles, inspect revision-bound receipts, and carry work between coding agents") followed by an explicit "Use for..." when-clause with three concrete trigger scenarios plus a negative trigger ("use package-specific skills for implementation and ordinary small edits"). This matches the anchor that explicitly answers both what and when with concrete trigger phrases.

Trigger Term Quality

The when-clause provides "substantial SDK or CLI work spanning sessions, evidence review, or carrying work between coding agents" — some relevant natural terms (SDK, CLI, sessions, coding agents), but it misses the common variations users would actually say such as "verify", "validate", "resume", or "handoff". Not a 4 because "evidence review" is jargon-leaning and the core user verb "verify" never appears in the trigger clause; not a 2 because several genuine keywords are present.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The verification-profile/receipt niche is fairly distinct and the explicit delegation "use package-specific skills for implementation and ordinary small edits" actively reduces conflict with implementation skills. Not a 5 because "carry work between coding agents" and "evidence review" have minor overlap risk with general session-summary or code-review skills.