Conciseness

The same failure-mode warning ("zero hits in this category renders the report clean", NOT ASSESSED rules) is restated at length in the Phase 1 multiplayer note, the Phase 3 engine-table intro, the Category 1 blockquote, the Phase 5 blockquote, and Phase 7, and meta-commentary about the skill's own history ("That warning was earned along the version axis... the identical hole along the engine axis shipped anyway") justifies rules rather than instructing. Several padded/redundant sections could be cut or consolidated without losing any operational content. Not a 1: it never explains concepts Claude already knows — the padding is repetition, not tutorials. Not a 3: the redundancy is more than 'some' unnecessary explanation; the identical rule is argued three to four times.

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: exact grep patterns per category (`FileAccess`, `ENetMultiplayerPeer`, `api[_-]?key`, `BEGIN PRIVATE KEY`), an engine-specific pattern table, a copy-paste brief template with explicit fill-in slots, a complete severity table, and a full report template down to the per-finding field list. Even the user-facing messages in Phase 7 are given verbatim.

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced 7-phase workflow with explicit validation checkpoints: first-match-wins release recommendation, NOT ASSESSED handling for every unscannable surface, ask-before-write in Phase 6, re-audit trigger after CRITICAL/HIGH remediation, and defined fallbacks for every failure mode (unresolved code root, unspawnable security-engineer, unset multiplayer keys). Error-recovery feedback loops are present for every risky branch.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ absent), so all ~440 lines are inlined in one SKILL.md. Section headers and phases are clear and the external doc references (docs/engine-reference/..., .claude/docs/...) are given with exact paths, but content that clearly belongs in separate reference files — the full report template, the per-engine pattern tables, the six category checklists — is inlined. Not a 4: the file's length is itself the navigation cost the rubric's splitting guidance targets.

Specificity

Names the action ("Security audit") plus five concrete areas — "save tampering, cheat vectors, network exploits, data exposure, input validation" — which is several specific capabilities. Not a 5: coverage has a minor gap; the skill's Category 6 (dependency/supply chain) is absent from the description. Not a 3: it lists several areas, not just 1-2.

Completeness

Both parts are present: the 'what' is auditing the five named vectors, and the 'when' is explicit — "Before public or multiplayer release." Not a 5: the 'when' covers only the release case; the body's other triggers (before enabling online features, after implementing disk/network-reading systems, when a security bug is reported) are omitted, so it could be more specific. Not a 3: the 'when' is explicit, not weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keyword coverage: "security audit", "save tampering", "cheat vectors", "network exploits", "data exposure", "input validation", "public or multiplayer release" are all phrases a user would plausibly say. Not a 5: common synonyms like "vulnerability", "hardening", or "penetration test" are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Security audit" scoped to game release vectors (save tampering, cheats, multiplayer exploits) is a clear niche with distinct triggers; nothing generic that would collide with other skills. Third-person voice, no fluff.