Conciseness

Phases 1–6 are terse and procedural, but the 'Insufficient input' section spends ~15 lines on rationale — two extended hypothetical failure examples ('an asset audit returning COMPLIANT on a project with no assets', 'a performance profile reporting ">99% headroom against a 16.67ms budget"') plus an 'Absence of evidence is never evidence of absence' paragraph that restate the same rule. This is more than minor over-explanation, matching anchor 3 ('mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened') rather than anchor 4.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: exact paths to read ('assets/data/', 'design/balance/', 'design/registry/entities.yaml'), a copy-paste Grep invocation, a concrete outlier example ('player_damage_base 140 against 90–110'), a complete output template with table schemas, an exact AskUserQuestion prompt with three literal options, and a file-naming convention with date format. The common cases (combat, economy, progression, loot) each get specific checks. Not below 5: no gaps in what to read, compare, output, or ask.

Workflow Clarity

Six phases are explicitly sequenced with an upfront validation checkpoint ('check this before producing any report', FOUND/ABSENT recording, explicit stop conditions), first-match-wins verdict decision rules, and a fix→re-run feedback loop in Phase 6 ('offer to re-run the relevant balance checks to verify no new outliers were introduced'). Matches anchor 5 (explicit validation steps, feedback loops, checklists); anchor 4's 'minor validation gaps' does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, and the single-file body is well-organized into headed phases — good structure with content mostly appropriately placed, matching anchor 4. Not 5: there are no well-signaled external references splitting detail out, and the four domain-specific checklists in Phase 4 (plus their unused sibling domains) are inlined on every run when they could be one level deep in per-domain reference files loaded after Phase 1 selects the domain.

Specificity

Lists several specific actions — 'Find balance outliers, broken progressions, degenerate strategies, economy imbalances' — with a concrete target ('in formulas and data'). Anchor 4 fits ('several specific actions; minor gaps in coverage'); not 5 because loot balance (rarity distribution, pity timers), which the skill body handles, is omitted from the description.

Completeness

Both parts are present: a clear 'what' (find balance outliers, broken progressions, degenerate strategies, economy imbalances) and an explicit 'when' equivalent ('Check game balance' as a concrete trigger phrase), so it clears the cap-at-3 rule. Anchor 4 rather than 5: the 'when' is a single narrow quoted command — no 'Use when...' clause covering variants like tuning weapon damage or reviewing progression curves.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes one excellent natural trigger phrase in quotes ('Check game balance') plus user-sayable domain terms 'progression', 'economy', 'outliers'. Good coverage matching anchor 4; not 5 because common variations a designer would actually say — 'tuning', 'overpowered/OP', 'time-to-kill', 'DPS', 'pity timer' — are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Game-design jargon ('degenerate strategies', 'broken progressions') and the quoted 'Check game balance' give it a mostly distinct niche — anchor 4. Not 5: the capability sentence itself ('economy imbalances in formulas and data') never says 'game', so a request to check economy imbalances in non-game data carries minor overlap risk with general data-analysis skills.