Conciseness

The body is lean — a compact 10-row table of detection signals and terse bullets with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows — matching anchor 4. It misses anchor 5 because of small wastes: an empty '## **Priority: P0 (CRITICAL)**' header with no content beneath it, a 'Canonical response anchors' section ending in a single dangling item ('- sanitize'), and awkward phrasing like '— not skip any item'.

Actionability

Guidance is mostly executable for an audit workflow: ordered checks ('Check LLM01 first', 'Check LLM06 next'), a marking scheme ('✅ not affected | ⚠️ needs review | 🔴 confirmed finding'), a scoring rule ('P0 finding caps Security score at 40/100'), and concrete per-risk signals like 'No `max_tokens` on LLM call. No rate limit on invocations.' This matches anchor 4; it is not 5 because fix guidance lives entirely in the reference file and a couple of guidelines (e.g. 'pin source revision and hashes') lack concrete examples inline.

Workflow Clarity

A partial sequence exists (LLM01 first, LLM06 next, then 'mark each item'), but the remaining eight risks are unsequenced and there is no explicit validation or reporting checkpoint — the marking scheme is implied rather than a stated verify/report step. This matches anchor 3 ('steps listed but validation gaps; checkpoints missing or implicit'), and the empty P0 priority header suggests missing workflow content that would be needed for anchor 4.

Progressive Disclosure

SKILL.md is a genuine overview: a summary table of the ten risks with key signals, while full detection signals are split into one real, one-level-deep reference (references/owasp-llm.md, verified to exist, 115 lines) that is clearly signaled twice with load-when guidance ('load when auditing any LLM client code'). This matches anchor 5 — clear overview, well-signaled one-level-deep references, easy navigation — and is above anchor 4 because nothing that belongs in the reference is inlined and no reference is buried.

Specificity

The description names a clear domain and surfaces ("audit checklist for AI applications, agent tools, RAG pipelines, and prompt construction") but offers only one action verb — auditing — rather than several specific actions. It matches anchor 3 (domain plus 1-2 concrete actions) rather than 4, which requires a list of several distinct actions.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the what ("OWASP LLM Top 10 (2025) audit checklist for AI applications, agent tools, RAG pipelines, and prompt construction") and the when ("Use when performing any security review touching LLM client code, prompt templates, agent tools, or vector stores") with concrete trigger phrases. This is a direct match for anchor 5 and clearly above anchor 4, whose 'when' is less specific.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrases like "security review", "LLM client code", "prompt templates", "agent tools", "RAG pipelines", and "vector stores" give good keyword coverage, matching anchor 4. It falls short of anchor 5 because common synonyms a user would actually say — e.g. "prompt injection", "LLM security", "AI security" — appear only in metadata.triggers, not in the description itself.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The skill occupies a clear niche (LLLM application security auditing against the OWASP LLM Top 10) with distinct, targeted triggers, matching anchor 5. Overlap risk with general security or general coding skills is minimal since the triggers are specific to LLM client code, prompt templates, agent tools, and vector stores.