Conciseness

The body is efficient — it assumes Claude's competence, explains no basic concepts, and delegates detail to references ("See [implementation examples](references/implementation.md)..."). Not 5: the identical 'See implementation examples' pointer sentence is repeated four times and could be consolidated, and the 'Canonical response anchors' section is cryptic ('preserve the following domain terminology... - -25') and earns no clarity per token; not 3: there is no padding or unnecessary explanation beyond these minor instances.

Actionability

Concrete, executable commands appear inline ("npm audit --audit-level=high | pip-audit | cargo audit", a grep for "REACT_APP_|NEXT_PUBLIC_|VITE_", specific checks like "any findById without an owner filter is a P0 IDOR"), and the referenced files (implementation.md, mobile-audit.md, REMEDIATION.md) were verified to contain real, runnable commands. Not 5: sections 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 are bare pointers in the body itself, so the body alone is not fully copy-paste ready.

Workflow Clarity

The numbered sections 1–8 and the Scoring Impact table with thresholds give a recognizable sequence and evaluation criteria, but validation checkpoints are implicit at best. The skill directs destructive remediation ("rotate the credential NOW and purge from history") and batch codebase scans without any verify/re-scan feedback loop, and the rubric caps destructive/batch workflows lacking validation at 3. Not 2: a real sequence with concrete thresholds is present, far above 'steps poorly defined'.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a genuine overview with clearly signaled, one-level-deep references (implementation.md, mobile-audit.md, REMEDIATION.md — all verified to exist and not to nest further). Not 5: three of the six bundle files (signals.md, trust-review-policy.md, vibe-security-scan.md) are never referenced from the body, so half the reference material is undiscoverable through navigation; not 3: the body's own structure is good, references are clearly signaled, and nothing inlined belongs in a separate file.

Specificity

Lists five concrete probe targets ("hardcoded secrets, injection surfaces, unguarded routes, business logic flaws, and platform-specific weaknesses") plus explicit platform coverage (Node, Go, Java, Python, Rust, React, Angular, Vue, iOS, Android, Flutter). This matches the anchor for multiple specific concrete actions with comprehensive coverage; score 4 would require minor gaps, and the platform and vulnerability-class enumeration leaves none.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: what it does ("Probe for hardcoded secrets, injection surfaces, unguarded routes, business logic flaws...") and when to use it ("Use when performing security audits, vulnerability scans, secrets detection, or penetration testing") with concrete trigger phrases. This is a direct match for the top anchor; the 'when' clause is explicit, not weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when performing security audits, vulnerability scans, secrets detection, or penetration testing" provides good natural keyword coverage a user would plausibly say. Not 5: common casual variations and synonyms ("secure code review", "check my code for vulnerabilities", "SAST", "appsec") are absent; not 3: several relevant natural phrases are present, not just one or two generic keywords.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The security-audit niche is clear with distinct, domain-specific triggers (vulnerability scans, secrets detection, penetration testing), making wrong-skill triggering unlikely. Not 5: minor overlap risk remains with closely related skills such as general code-review or secure-coding-review skills that also surface security findings; not 3: the triggers are far more specific than the 'somewhat specific' anchor.