Conciseness

The tables and core sections are tight, but key policies are stated two to three times: tool-rejection-vs-quota appears in 'Capability and Effort' ('Tool argument rejections or unsupported parameters are schema errors, not provider exhaustion'), 'Rules' ('Do not treat tool parameter rejections as quota exhaustion'), and 'Anti-Patterns' ('tool rejections are not quota errors'); parent-tier inheritance is likewise repeated three times. Not 4: the redundancy exceeds minor instances; not 2: every sentence carries skill-specific policy and nothing explains concepts Claude already knows.

Actionability

Fully executable for an instruction skill: exact 0/1/2 anchors per scoring dimension, a copy-paste output format ('SNC: S=[0-2] N=[0-2] C=[0-2] total=[n] tier=[low|medium|high]'), explicit tier thresholds (total 0-2 / 3-4 / 5-6), a routing table mapping each tier to concrete autonomy/verification/review/approval settings, and 'emit snc_tier and model_tier in every Handoff Payload'. Not 4: the common cases are covered without gaps.

Workflow Clarity

The score → risk-floor → route → verify sequence is clear ('Score before planning'; 're-score after specialist-codebase-scout reports impact radius') with explicit validation gates ('HARD STOP before code, human approval before merge') and genuine feedback loops ('Re-score when scope grows mid-task; the tier must rise immediately'; 'Stop and re-score' on red-flag rationalizations; downward reassessment only with documented evidence). Not 4: validation checkpoints are explicit rather than implied.

Progressive Disclosure

Both referenced files (references/snc-rubric.md, references/routing-table.md) exist, the anchored link '[Capability and effort resolution](references/routing-table.md#capability-and-effort-resolution)' resolves to a real header, and detail (worked examples, receipt fields) is appropriately split out with a closing References section. Not 5: references/routing-table.md points to ARCHITECTURE.md, which is not present in the bundle — a dangling second-level path; not 3: structure and signaling are otherwise good.

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete third-person actions with specific objects — 'Scores a task on Spread, Novelty, Centrality (0-6)', 'routes the tier to autonomy, verification, review and model tier', 'gives provider-neutral capability/effort guidance' — comprehensively covering the skill's core functions. Not 4: no meaningful capability gap remains; not below: every verb names a concrete action.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: the 'what' ('Scores a task on Spread, Novelty, Centrality (0-6), routes the tier to autonomy, verification, review and model tier, and gives provider-neutral capability/effort guidance') and the 'when' ('Use for sizing, model routing, LLM model selection, thinking level or model tier') with concrete trigger phrases. Not 4: the when-clause is already explicit and specific.

Trigger Term Quality

'Use for sizing, model routing, LLM model selection, thinking level or model tier' provides good natural-term coverage with synonyms (model routing / LLM model selection / model tier). Not 5: common user phrasings like 'task complexity' or 'how complex is this task' appear only in metadata triggers, not in the description itself.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The SNC framing ('Spread, Novelty, Centrality') carves a clear niche, but broad triggers like 'model routing' and 'LLM model selection' could pull in tasks belonging to a dedicated model-selection skill. Not 5 due to this minor overlap risk; not 3: the scoring-rubric framing is largely distinct from neighboring skills.