Conciseness

The body is lean and directive: the Decision Gates table encodes seven situations in two columns, the mission checklist is a bare enumeration, and no section explains concepts Claude already knows. Every line is either a rule, a gate, a step, or a pointer. This matches the 'lean and efficient; every token earns its place' anchor rather than anchor 4, which reserves room for trimmable over-explanation — there is none here.

Actionability

The Decision Gates table and the six-item mission checklist give concrete, executable guidance (exact goal, file paths, constraints, expected evidence, allowed toolsets). It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no copy-paste-ready example of an actual delegate_task call or mission text — the reader must assemble one from the checklist.

Workflow Clarity

Execution Steps 1-6 are clearly sequenced with an explicit validation checkpoint (step 5, 'Verify the claimed output (check file existence, test result, side effect)') and the Output Contract covers discrepancies. It misses anchor 5 because there is no error-recovery feedback loop when verification fails — no instruction to retry, re-delegate, or fix — only reporting the discrepancy. The batch-parallel delegation context is covered by the 'batch parallel calls only for independent workstreams' rule, so the batch cap at 3 does not apply given validation is present.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview with clear sections, and the single reference (references/tuning-knobs.md) exists, is one level deep, is clearly signaled with a description of what it contains ('Full table of delegate_task configuration parameters and the explicit toolset/MCP/skill checklist'). Content is appropriately split — the tuning table genuinely belongs in a reference file. This matches the 'clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references' anchor; the only reason to consider 4 would be wanting more references, but nothing in the body needs externalizing.

Specificity

The description names the mechanism ('Orchestrate complex work via delegate_task') and a purpose ('protect context'), which is 1-2 concrete actions, but it does not enumerate the broader capability set (mission drafting, verification, synthesis) covered in the body. It sits above 'names the domain but actions are minimal' (2) because delegate_task and context protection are concrete, but below 4 because coverage of what the skill actually does is thin.

Completeness

Both halves are present: 'Trigger: ...' explicitly answers when, and 'Orchestrate complex work via delegate_task to protect context' answers what. The when clause is explicit with concrete trigger phrases, but the what is compressed — it omits the verify-and-synthesize loop that is central to the skill — so it falls short of the 'clearly and explicitly answers both' anchor 5 while clearly exceeding anchor 3.

Trigger Term Quality

Trigger phrases 'broad exploration, multi-file reads, tests/builds, fresh review, or multi-step debug' are natural terms users would say. Coverage is good but misses common synonyms like 'PR review', 'refactor', 'codebase mapping', or 'audit', keeping it below the comprehensive anchor 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The delegate_task orchestration niche is distinctive and unlikely to be confused with file-format or analysis skills. Minor overlap risk remains because trigger terms like 'fresh review' and 'tests/builds' could also match dedicated review or build skills. It fits 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' rather than the minimal-conflict anchor 5.