Conciseness

The body is largely lean — one-line section pointers plus inline commands like `npm audit --audit-level=high` and the `REACT_APP_` grep — with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows. It falls short of anchor 5 because the closing "Canonical response anchors" section contributes only a stray "-25" fragment, and `implementation.md`/`mobile-audit.md` links are repeated across sections.

Actionability

Several sections give concrete, executable commands and detection patterns (`grep -rE "(REACT_APP_|NEXT_PUBLIC_|VITE_)"`, `findById` without an owner filter, `...req.body` spread), and the remaining detail is delegated to reference files that contain verified runnable grep/audit commands. It is not anchor 5 because sections 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 offer no inline commands and depend entirely on the linked files.

Workflow Clarity

The eight numbered sections form a P0-prioritized audit sequence, and the Scoring Impact table plus the CAUTION note ("rotate the credential NOW") provide explicit outcome thresholds and post-detection actions — clear sequence with most checkpoints present. It is not anchor 5 because there is no validate/re-run feedback loop for scan findings; the read-only nature of auditing means the destructive-operation cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a compact overview with clearly signaled, one-level-deep references (`references/implementation.md`, `references/mobile-audit.md`, `references/REMEDIATION.md`) that all exist and contain the delegated detail. It misses anchor 5 because half the bundle — `signals.md`, `trust-review-policy.md`, and `vibe-security-scan.md` — is never referenced from the body, leaving that content unnavigable from the skill.

Specificity

The description lists five concrete probe categories ("hardcoded secrets, injection surfaces, unguarded routes, business logic flaws, and platform-specific weaknesses") with named platform coverage across backend, frontend, and mobile, matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor. It is not 4 because the capability list spans the full audit domain without minor gaps.

Completeness

It clearly answers both questions: "what" (probe for the five named finding categories across three platform families) and "when" ("Use when performing security audits, vulnerability scans, secrets detection, or penetration testing"). This mirrors the anchor-5 example structure with explicit, concrete trigger phrases, so it exceeds anchor 4's looser 'when' clause.

Trigger Term Quality

Explicit trigger phrases ("security audits, vulnerability scans, secrets detection, or penetration testing") are natural terms users would say, but common variations such as "pentest", "appsec", or "SAST" are absent. Good keyword coverage with a few natural terms missing fits anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's synonym/extension breadth.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The security-audit niche is clear and its triggers are security-specific, but the very broad platform scope creates minor overlap risk with generic code-review or security-review skills. This places it at "mostly distinct; minor overlap risk" rather than anchor 5's minimal-conflict profile, and well above anchor 3's ambiguous overlap.