Conciseness

The ~40-line body is lean and efficient with no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows; every line carries non-obvious domain guidance such as "A successful package-manager exit alone is not proof of a usable installation" and "A visible user CLI intentionally takes precedence over a managed Runtime" context via routing. Fits the 5 anchor (every token earns its place); the 4 anchor's 'minor instances of over-explanation' does not apply.

Actionability

Concrete decision rules ("Use manual package-manager commands only when the UI is unavailable or the user asks for them"), named UI surfaces ("the Agents page and Version Management UI"), enumerated validation criteria ("the executable, version, resolved path, and Studio detection"), and explicit recovery diagnostics ("diagnose the running Studio process's PATH and npm prefix before reinstalling"). Per the rubric's instruction-only scoring note, the absence of inline code is not penalized because command details are correctly and consistently deferred to the references, so the guidance is fully actionable; the 4 anchor's 'minor gaps' are absent.

Workflow Clarity

The six-step workflow has a clear sequence with explicit validation checkpoints: pre-mutation inspection ("Inspect the existing installation before mutating it"), post-operation validation (step 5 enumerates what to verify), and failure feedback loops ("If Runtime verification, activation, or migration fails, keep the previous usable Runtime active and report the persisted error"). The destructive-operation cap does not apply because removal and migration are guarded by validation and preserve-previous policies; fits the 5 anchor's explicit validation plus error-recovery loops.

Progressive Disclosure

A clear overview routes to three real, one-level-deep bundle files (references/studio.md, references/hermes-runtime.md, references/coding-agents.md all exist and contain no nested local references), each mapped to a distinct task boundary with clear signals of what it covers, plus the rule "Read more than one reference only when the request crosses those boundaries." Matches the 5 anchor (well-signaled one-level-deep references, appropriately split content); the 4 anchor's 'minor organization gaps' does not apply.

Specificity

The description lists seven concrete lifecycle actions — "Install, detect, validate, update, remove, recover, or migrate" — applied to explicitly named components (Ekko Studio, its managed Hermes Runtime, and the Claude Code, Codex, Pi, and Grok CLIs). This is comprehensive action coverage matching the 5 anchor; the 4 anchor ('minor gaps in coverage') is not a better fit.

Completeness

Both questions are explicitly answered with concrete trigger phrases: the first sentence states what the skill does, and "Use for installation status, version checks, Runtime downloads and storage moves, PATH problems, or upgrade failures" states when, reinforced by an explicit negative boundary ("do not use for model, Provider, credential, MCP, memory, or Skill configuration"). Matches the 5 anchor exactly; the 4 anchor's 'when could be more explicit' does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage with natural problem phrases users would say — "installation status", "version checks", "PATH problems", "upgrade failures", "Runtime downloads and storage moves" — plus strong product-name triggers. A few common natural terms are still missing (e.g., "uninstall", "reinstall", "broken/not working"), so it fits the 4 anchor rather than 5's comprehensive synonym coverage; it clearly exceeds the 3 anchor's 'missing common variations'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The skill occupies a clear niche — installation and lifecycle management of specific named products — with distinct triggers and an explicit exclusion list for configuration topics, keeping conflict risk with other skills minimal. Matches the 5 anchor; the 4 anchor's 'minor overlap risk with closely related skills' is not a better fit.