Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes competence (no concept tutorials, no library background), but at ~150 lines it has minor trimmable redundancy — 'Common Reveals' overlaps the worked examples and 'What This Skill Is Not' restates points already made — matching anchor 4 rather than 5's every-token-earns-its-place.

Actionability

Fully actionable instruction-only guidance: ordered fill-in templates ('This function ______.'), explicit audit checklists ('Does this surface serve the sentence?'), and complete worked examples with concrete verdicts ('Verdict: the wrapper contributes zero. Delete it.') covering the common cases — matches anchor 5.

Workflow Clarity

Both applications have explicit ordered steps ('Three reductions in order. Don't skip.'), an error-recovery feedback loop ('If the sentence keeps drifting... the design isn't coherent yet: that's the finding. Name the ambiguity before continuing.'), audit checklists, and a Success Criteria validation gate — anchor 5's clear sequence with explicit validation and feedback loops, not anchor 4's minor validation gaps.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and the single-file structure is well organized with clear section headers and one-level-deep cross-skill pointers (asymmetric-wins, post-implementation-review, rethink); minor organization gaps (e.g. the asymmetric-wins checklist feels supplemental) fit anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's well-signaled multi-file split.

Specificity

Names a concrete move ('stating what it actually does in one sentence') across several specific subject types ('product, API, utility, or design'), matching anchor 4's several specific actions with minor gaps; it is essentially one action, so it falls short of anchor 5's comprehensive coverage but exceeds anchor 3's 1-2 actions.

Completeness

Explicitly answers what ('Test a product, API, utility, or design by stating what it actually does in one sentence') and when ('Use when auditing coherence or looking for orphaned surfaces...not for plain code-comprehension questions'), matching anchor 5's clear what AND when with concrete trigger phrases.

Trigger Term Quality

'auditing coherence', 'orphaned surfaces', 'duplicate verbs', and 'inert abstractions' give good trigger coverage, but the most natural user phrasings ('elevator pitch', 'what does X actually do') appear only in the body, not the description — anchor 4 rather than 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (one-sentence coherence/value audit) with distinct trigger terms and an explicit exclusion clause ('not for plain code-comprehension questions') that minimizes misfires — matches anchor 5's clear niche with minimal conflict risk.