Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — every explanation (moc double-listing, auto.pri behavior, valgrind rejection rationale) is non-obvious project knowledge rather than padding. However, time-sensitive information sits inline outside any 'old patterns'/'deprecated' section: "ran clean with no suppressions as of 2026-09-16" and "Qt floor is 6.8", which the guidelines say should penalize conciseness. Not 3 because there is no genuine over-explanation; not 5 because of the inline date/version markers.

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: copy-paste make check/coverage/ASan command blocks, a complete test-file template with SPDX headers and QTEST_MAIN, a .pro template, and concrete assertion conventions (QCOMPARE vs QVERIFY2, getter defaults, QDir::cleanPath). Not 4 because the common cases are covered end-to-end with nothing left as pseudocode or vague direction.

Workflow Clarity

The five-step workflow has explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: "see it fail first", "read the failing function's output with -v2, fix the code or the test, and re-run until every suite passes", "Do not commit with a failing suite", "fix every report before committing", and "re-run until clean". Not 4 because validation for the batch operation (make check) is explicit and reiterated at each risky step (new suite, ownership changes, ASan).

Progressive Disclosure

A clear overview with two well-signaled, one-level-deep references — each introduced with its exact scope ("For the full suite inventory (which suite covers which class, platform exclusions, shared helpers), read references/suites.md") — and both files exist with headings matching the linked anchor (#reading-addresssanitizer-output). Not 4 because the split is appropriate and navigation is trivial: details live in references, the SKILL.md holds commands, workflow, and templates.

Specificity

Lists multiple specific concrete actions — "Writes, runs and debugs QtPass Qt Test suites under tests/auto, adds new tst_ suites, isolates settings, and checks coverage and ASan leaks" — with comprehensive coverage of the skill's niche. Not 4 because there are no minor gaps: authoring, running, debugging, suite creation, settings isolation, coverage, and leak checking are all named.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both "what" (first sentence enumerates concrete capabilities) and "when" ("Use when asked to write tests, add a test, run tests or make check, fix a failing test...") with concrete trigger phrases — a direct match for the anchor-5 example.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases users would actually say are comprehensively covered, including project-specific synonyms: "write tests, add a test, run tests or make check, fix a failing test, find which suite covers a class, measure coverage, hunt leaks with sanitizers, or set up test fixtures". Not 4 because synonym coverage (e.g. both "run tests" and "make check") is essentially complete for this domain.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche with distinct triggers: QtPass, Qt Test, tst_ suites, tests/auto, make check, and ASan leave minimal overlap risk with generic testing skills. Not 4 because the project-specific vocabulary makes confusion with any other skill unlikely.