Conciseness

The body assumes Claude's competence — no explanations of what OWASP, RAG, or LLMs are — and every section is audit-directed ("Mark each item", "Check LLM01 first"). It is not a 5 because of trimmable redundancy: the admission-guidance link is repeated three times, the "Untrusted workspaces" bullet largely restates "Before context transfer", and the one-word "Canonical response anchors" list ("sanitize") is noise. That places it above anchor 3's 'some unnecessary explanation' but short of lean perfection.

Actionability

Concrete, executable audit guidance dominates: a per-item marking protocol ("✅ not affected | ⚠️ needs review | 🔴 confirmed finding"), explicit priority ordering ("Check LLM01 first", "Check LLM06 next"), and specific detection signals ("No `max_tokens` on LLM call", "User input interpolated into prompt"). It falls short of 5 because several guideline bullets ("Evolution approval", "Offline fallback") are abstract policy dependent on an external document, and "P0 finding caps Security score at 40/100" assumes an external scoring system the body never defines.

Workflow Clarity

A clear sequence is present — priority items first (LLM01, then LLM06), then the full LLM01–LLM10 table sweep — and the "Mark each item" protocol plus "do not skip any item" act as per-item checkpoints, which is above anchor 3's missing-checkpoint case. It is not a 5 because there is no explicit completion/reporting step and the remaining eight table items have no stated order beyond ID sequence. This is a review skill, not a destructive or batch operation, so the workflow-clarity validation cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The ~50-line body is a genuine overview (checklist table, guidelines, anti-patterns) and the deep material — full detection signals — is correctly split into a single one-level-deep, clearly signaled reference: "[OWASP LLM — Full Detection Signals](references/owasp-llm.md) — load when auditing any LLM client code", which exists in the bundle (8.4KB of per-risk signal tables). The cross-skill admission-guidance reference is also one level deep and clearly labeled. This matches anchor 5's clear overview with well-signaled one-level-deep references.

Specificity

"audit checklist for AI applications, agent tools, RAG pipelines, and prompt construction" names one concrete action but applies it to a concretely enumerated scope (four target surfaces), giving specific coverage with minor gaps. It exceeds the 1-2-action anchor 3 but does not list several distinct action verbs like the anchor-5 example, so it sits just above the midpoint at 4.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: the 'what' is "OWASP LLM Top 10 (2025) audit checklist for AI applications, agent tools, RAG pipelines, and prompt construction" and the 'when' is a concrete "Use when performing any security review touching LLM client code, prompt templates, agent tools, or vector stores". This mirrors the anchor-5 example structure of clear what + explicit Use-when with concrete trigger conditions; it is not the anchor-4 case of a vague or weakly-specified when.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms users would say are present — "security review", "RAG", "prompt templates", "agent tools", "vector stores" — giving good coverage. However, the most natural phrase a user would utter for this skill, "prompt injection", is absent (it appears only in metadata.triggers, not the description), matching the anchor-4 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The skill occupies a clear niche — LLM-specific security auditing against the OWASP LLM Top 10 taxonomy — and the when-clause scopes triggering to LLM-touching reviews, so overlap with generic document or code skills is minimal. This matches anchor 5's 'clear niche with distinct triggers'.