Conciseness

The body contains no concept explanations and no padding — even edge-case rules are compressed to high-value single sentences ("Write only on an explicit yes to this question; agreeing to a cut or saying 'go on' is not a yes to the write"). Only trivial redundancy (the no-game-concept.md rule appears twice), so anchor 5 ('lean and efficient; every token earns its place') fits better than 4.

Actionability

Guidance is copy-paste ready for an instruction skill: exact question wording ("Brief is ready. May I write it to `design/game-brief.md`?" with options "Yes — write it" / "Revise a field first"), exact file paths, exact thresholds ("More than 7 items: push back"), a literal output line ("Verdict: COMPLETE — game brief written; next stop is code."), and fallbacks for dismissed questions, revisions, and early stops. No gaps found for common cases, so 5 over 4.

Workflow Clarity

The lean flow is a clear numbered sequence with explicit user-confirmation checkpoints and a revision feedback loop (change the named field, show before and after, ask again). It falls to 4 rather than 5 because the --review flag 'overrides review_mode' and the hook resolves review_mode, yet no behavior described in this body consumes it — a dangling thread — and step 4.1's conditional listing logic ('List it only when engine.name is absent or empty: on the minimal path it usually ran before this skill') is convoluted.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is an overview and the heavy full-tier flow (8 phases, 195 lines) is correctly offloaded to the real, substantive references/full-concept.md — one level deep, conditionally loaded ('do not load references/full-concept.md' at the minimal tier), with templates and director gates delegated further. Anchor 5 ('clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references') is the best fit.

Specificity

"Guides the user through finding and choosing a game concept" names the domain and the core action but stops there — it never mentions the concrete outputs (proposing 2–3 one-line concepts, the one-page brief, design/game-brief.md). This matches anchor 3 ('names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive'), not 4, because there is no list of several specific actions.

Completeness

"Guides the user through finding and choosing a game concept. Use when the user wants game ideas..." explicitly answers both what and when, and the when clause carries multiple concrete trigger phrases, matching the anchor-5 pattern rather than anchor 4 whose example 'when' is generic.

Trigger Term Quality

"game ideas, a new concept, a game jam idea, or to explore other directions, including dropping the current idea and starting over" gives good natural phrasing users would actually say. Not 5 because the most obvious term "brainstorm" (and close synonyms like "pitch" or genre hints) is missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The game-concept niche is distinct with game-specific triggers ("game ideas", "game jam idea"), but "or to explore other directions, including dropping the current idea and starting over" is broad enough to overlap with design-revision or pivot skills. Anchor 4: mostly distinct with minor overlap risk; not 5 because of that broad tail clause.