Conciseness

The 47-line body is lean and efficient with zero padding: a one-line flow, a default-outputs list, terse rules, and a Read-next pointer list. No concept Claude already knows is explained, and every token earns its place — a clean match for anchor 5.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance is present: exact output paths ('Sources/Papers/{paper-slug}.md', 'Knowledge/Claim Map.md'), and a specific promotion contract ('Evidence Record ID, source type, claim strength, allowed wording, and forbidden stronger wording'). It falls short of anchor 5 because the bundled scripts (build_literature_canvas.py, build_literature_graph.py) are never invoked or linked, and no worked example appears inline — minor gaps rather than missing key details.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence exists ('Sources/Papers/ -> Knowledge/ -> Writing/ -> Maps/literature.canvas') and a checkpoint is referenced ('only after promoted claims pass the evidence gate'), but the gate itself is never defined or linked in the body, and there is no explicit validate-then-proceed step for a workflow that batch-generates notes. This matches anchor 3 — sequence present but checkpoints implicit.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a genuine overview with one-level-deep references: all six Read-next files exist and (verified in CLAIM-EXTRACTION.md and others) point no deeper. It is not anchor 5 because the Read-next list is unlabeled, and several bundle files — both scripts, CANVAS-WORKFLOW.md, and GRAPH-WORKFLOW.md — are orphaned, never referenced from SKILL.md, which hurts navigation and discovery.

Specificity

Names the domain ('project-scoped literature review') and concrete destinations ('Sources/Papers', 'synthesis landing in Knowledge', 'writing handoff in Writing', 'Maps/literature.canvas'), but the actions themselves are structural and implied rather than enumerated concrete capabilities. It fits anchor 3 (domain plus 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive) better than anchor 4, which expects several specific actions to be listed.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (project-scoped literature review with a defined vault flow), but 'when' has no explicit trigger guidance: 'Use this skill for...' restates the what rather than naming conditions under which to invoke it. Per the judging guidelines, a missing explicit 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 3.

Trigger Term Quality

'literature review', 'synthesis', and 'literature canvas' are natural terms, but common variations users would actually say — 'papers', 'citations', 'related work', 'survey', 'reading notes' — are missing. This matches 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms' rather than anchor 4's 'good keyword coverage'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Project-scoped literature review' anchored to Obsidian-specific vault paths (Sources/Papers, Knowledge, Writing, Maps/literature.canvas) carves a fairly clear niche with only minor overlap risk against generic literature-review or note-taking skills — matching anchor 4 rather than anchor 5, since the trigger phrasing itself is not uniquely distinctive.