The body is mostly efficient, domain-specific guidance that does not belabor basics Claude already knows, but merged-cell handling is repeated across Rule 2, Phase 2B.2, Phase 6, and the Error handling section, and the inline shell_agent escalation template is long. It is not a 3 because the redundancy and length mean not every token earns its place, and not a 1 because it avoids padded conceptual explanation.

It provides fully executable Python for creation, editing, safe structure inspection, and a complete Phase 6 verification script, plus the concrete command `python verify_workbook.py`. It is not a 2 because the code is real and largely copy-paste ready rather than pseudocode.

Phases 1–6 are clearly sequenced with a pre-edit go/no-go gate, a finalization gate, explicit retry/escalation feedback loops, and checklists for post-write proof. It is not a 2 because validation checkpoints and error-recovery loops are explicit rather than implicit.

The skill is well-organized into clear sections but is a monolithic single file well over 50 lines with no bundle files and no one-level-deep references; the long verification script and escalation template are inline. It is not a 1 because organization is good (not a disorganized wall), and not a 3 because there are no well-signaled separate references and content that could be split remains inline.

Lists multiple concrete actions — "Create or edit Excel workbooks", "openpyxl-specific pitfall handling", "anchored preflight audit", and "deterministic post-write proof" — rather than vague language. It is not a 2 because it goes beyond naming a domain plus a few actions into several specific operations.

It clearly answers "what" the skill does but provides no "Use when..." trigger clause, so per the judging guidelines completeness is capped at 2. It is not a 1 because the what is explicit, and not a 3 because explicit when-triggers are missing.

"Create or edit Excel workbooks" is a natural user phrase, but the rest ("anchored preflight audit", "deterministic post-write proof", "openpyxl-specific") is technical jargon users would not say, and common variants like "spreadsheet" or "xlsx" are absent. It is not a 1 because one genuine natural term is present, and not a 3 because coverage of natural phrasings is thin.

The combination of openpyxl pitfall handling plus deterministic post-write proof defines a clear niche unlikely to be triggered for unrelated skills. It is not a 2 because the niche is sharply defined rather than merely "somewhat specific".