Conciseness

The same material is restated many times: the label list "SKILL VIOLATION DETECTED", "Auto-fixed", "Root Cause", "User Intent", "Skill Gap" appears verbatim in the contract, the sentence-pattern line, the anti-patterns list, and the closing line (~4x); the 100-line rule appears three times (lines 28, 31, 91); and the audit-before-write contract is repeated across the 'Mandatory execution contract', 'Checkpoint', and 'Pre-Completion Check' sections. This matches anchor 2 ("noticeably verbose; several unnecessary... padded sections") — roughly 30-40% of the body is redundant restatement — rather than anchor 3's "mostly efficient... some unnecessary explanation could be tightened".

Actionability

The violation report is a copy-paste-ready fill-in template, the Root Cause Guide is a concrete enumerated table, and the checkpoint is a two-step decision procedure with explicit branches — mostly executable guidance with minor gaps. It falls short of anchor 5 because the body contains no worked example of detecting/reporting a violation (the examples exist in references/ but are never linked), and the fix step is asserted rather than illustrated.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is clearly laid out (check skills loaded → audit planned code → emit violation block → apply fix immediately), reinforced by a pre-completion re-check, matching anchor 4's "clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps". It is not anchor 5 because there is no error-recovery or verification loop after an auto-fix — the fix is applied and the flow ends, and "apply fix immediately — not wait for user confirmation" carries risk with no re-audit step.

Progressive Disclosure

The body itself is well-sectioned with headers, a template, and a table, but the two actual bundle files (references/violation-examples.md and references/test-scenarios.md) are never linked from the body — "references/" is mentioned only as a destination for oversized examples, not as navigation to existing material. This matches anchor 3 ("references present but not clearly signaled") rather than anchor 4, which requires references to be mostly clearly signaled.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — "checks planned code against loaded skill anti-patterns before any file write", "Load as composite", and "on auto-fixed violation, also load +common/common-learning-log" — with only minor gaps. It falls short of a 5 because it does not enumerate the full scope of behavior (e.g., emitting the violation report block, the diagnostic fields) and does not exceed anchor 4's "several specific actions; minor gaps in coverage"; it is clearly above anchor 3, which covers only 1-2 actions.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: what ("Pre-write audit for skill violations: checks planned code against loaded skill anti-patterns before any file write") and when ("Use when writing Flutter/Dart/TS code or editing SKILL.md files with active project skills"), plus a conditional trigger ("on auto-fixed violation, also load +common/common-learning-log"). This directly matches anchor 5; anchor 4 would require the "when" to be less explicit than it is.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant terms are present ("skill violations", "writing Flutter/Dart/TS code", "editing SKILL.md files"), but common variations and synonyms are missing — no file extensions (.dart, .ts, .tsx), and phrases like "pre-write audit" are author jargon a user would not naturally type. This matches anchor 3 ("some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms") better than anchor 4, which requires good coverage with only a few natural terms missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It occupies a clear meta-niche (auditing other loaded skills before writes) that few skills share, but its trigger surface (any Flutter/Dart/TS write) is broad, giving minor overlap risk with closely related code-writing and skill-management skills — matching anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's "clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk".