Conciseness

The body is lean: sections 1-3, 5, and 7 are one-line pointers to reference files ("See [implementation examples](references/implementation.md) for secrets scanning commands") with brief scope notes, and sections 4/6/8 use compact command lists. Minor trimmable redundancy keeps it below the lean score-5 anchor: section 6's frontend grep duplicates content already in implementation.md's "Frontend (Bundled Secrets)" section, and the trailing "Canonical response anchors" section ("- -25") is padding that earns no tokens.

Actionability

Mostly executable: concrete commands like `npm audit --audit-level=high`, `grep -rE "(REACT_APP_|NEXT_PUBLIC_|VITE_)" ...`, and a precise IDOR rule ("any `findById` without an `owner` filter is a P0"), with the deferred sections pointing to verified reference files containing full runnable commands. Minor gaps (the nonexistent-looking `pod audit`, the vague "Gradle scan") keep it below fully copy-paste-ready at 5.

Workflow Clarity

Sections 1-8 provide a clear audit sequence and the Scoring Impact table gives thresholds, but validation checkpoints are missing or implicit: there is no verify step for triaging grep hits into true positives before applying deductions, and the CAUTION note ("rotate the credential NOW") has no error-recovery loop. This matches the score-3 anchor (steps listed, checkpoints missing/implicit), not score 4 which requires most checkpoints present.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is well structured as an overview: bulk commands live in references/implementation.md, references/mobile-audit.md, and references/REMEDIATION.md, each clearly signaled with a one-level-deep markdown link and purpose statement. Scored against the actual bundle: three of six reference files (signals.md, trust-review-policy.md, vibe-security-scan.md) are never referenced from SKILL.md and are therefore undiscoverable, and signals.md links to a nonexistent ../.. path — organization gaps that hold this at the "minor gaps" score-4 anchor rather than the fully navigable score-5 anchor.

Specificity

"Probe for hardcoded secrets, injection surfaces, unguarded routes, business logic flaws, and platform-specific weaknesses" lists five concrete probe categories, and the platform parentheticals ("Node, Go, Java, Python, Rust", "React, Angular, Vue", "iOS, Android, Flutter") make coverage comprehensive. This matches the score-5 anchor (multiple specific concrete actions, comprehensive coverage); it is not score 4 because no capability area is left vague or gapped.

Completeness

The description explicitly answers both: what ("Probe for hardcoded secrets, injection surfaces, unguarded routes, business logic flaws...") and when ("Use when performing security audits, vulnerability scans, secrets detection, or penetration testing"). This matches the score-5 anchor of clear, concrete what-and-when; the when-clause is explicit with concrete trigger phrases, not merely implied as at score 4.

Trigger Term Quality

"security audits, vulnerability scans, secrets detection, or penetration testing" are natural phrases users would say, matching the good-keyword-coverage anchor. It misses common variations like "pentest" (present only in metadata triggers), "appsec", "SAST", or "code security review", so it does not reach the comprehensive-synonyms anchor at 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The security-audit niche is clear and its trigger terms ("security audits", "vulnerability scans", "penetration testing") are domain-specific, but "business logic flaws" and platform-wide probing overlap with general code-review and dependency-audit skills. This is mostly distinct with minor overlap risk — the score-4 anchor — rather than the minimal-conflict score-5 case.