Conciseness

The body is dense and lean with no padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows ("Claude owns a completed assignment in a dedicated clone. Codex owns continuity, acceptance, and integration."). Two minor trims exist: the implementation-freedom point is stated twice ("Let Claude choose the implementation within those guarantees" and "Let Claude choose implementation details within the accepted outcome"), and the time-sensitive requirement "authenticated Claude Code 2.1.285 or later" sits in the main flow rather than a versioning note. Not 3 because everything else earns its place.

Actionability

Commands are copy-paste ready: "git clone --no-local /absolute/source/checkout /absolute/worker/clone", both "bun .agents/skills/consult-claude/scripts/consult-claude.ts --mode delegate --workspace ..." heredoc invocations with effort/model flags, hardened inspection commands ("git -c core.fsmonitor= -c core.hooksPath=/dev/null diff --no-ext-diff --no-textconv <recorded-baseline>"), plus a fully worked assignment example. Remaining placeholders are deliberate path substitutions, matching the anchor's acceptability.

Workflow Clarity

Four clearly sequenced phases ("Work backward from acceptance", "Prepare the workspace", "Dispatch and continue", "Accept and integrate") with explicit validation checkpoints — inspect the diff against the supplied baseline "before executing worker code", distinguish which evidence came from Claude vs Codex — and an explicit error-recovery loop returning "a focused failure to the same worker" via a FOLLOWUP brief. Not 4 because checkpoints and feedback loops are explicit, not merely present.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, and the single-file body is well organized with clearly signaled one-hop links to sibling skills ([consult-claude](../consult-claude/SKILL.md), [rethink](../rethink/SKILL.md)). Not 5 because at ~175 lines some operational detail (e.g., the sandbox and tool-restriction inventory under Dispatch) could move to a reference file; not 3 because structure and navigation are good.

Specificity

"Delegate a bounded implementation, prototype, benchmark, or file artifact to Claude Code, then verify and integrate its completed work" names four work types and three concrete actions (delegate, verify, integrate). It is not 5 because what verification and integration entail is left as a minor gap; not 3 because coverage well exceeds 1-2 actions.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: the what ("Delegate a bounded implementation, prototype, benchmark, or file artifact to Claude Code, then verify and integrate its completed work") and the when ("Use when the user explicitly authorizes Claude to own execution") with a concrete trigger phrase. Not 4 because the when-clause is fully explicit rather than merely present or imprecise.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms a user would say are present: "delegate", "implementation", "prototype", "benchmark", "Claude Code", "verify and integrate". A few natural synonyms (e.g., "hand off", "outsource", "build") are missing, so it sits just below the comprehensive anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Read-only advice belongs to consult-claude" draws an explicit boundary against the closest sibling skill, and the trigger condition (explicit authorization for Claude to own execution) carves a clear niche with minimal overlap risk. Not 4 because disambiguation is stated outright rather than leaving minor overlap.