Conciseness

The decision table, output contracts, and 'What NOT to do' bullets are dense and filler-free, assuming Claude's competence throughout. The 'Why this exists (the real win)' section re-explains the compressed-output point already stated in the intro paragraph and the frontmatter description — minor over-explanation that could be trimmed, matching anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's every-token-earns-its-place.

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: exact output contract formats ('Safe to grep with `path:\d+`', '`verified: <re-read OK | mismatch @ path:line>`'), concrete spawn patterns ('Spawn 2-3 `cavecrew-investigator` calls in one message (different angles: defs vs callers vs tests)'), and a task-to-agent decision table. Per the rubric's code_vs_instruction note, absence of code is not penalized for an instruction-only skill, and this guidance covers the common cases — anchor 5.

Workflow Clarity

The main 'Locate → fix → verify' chain is explicitly numbered and ends with a verification step ('`cavecrew-reviewer` audits the diff'), the builder embeds a feedback contract ('verified: re-read OK | mismatch @ path:line'), and the 'What NOT to do' section adds explicit validation ('Don't accept or reject a subagent's absence claim ... without one targeted check ... Check cited line numbers are within the file'). Clear sequences with explicit validation and error recovery — anchor 5; no destructive/batch cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and none are needed; the ~72-line body is cleanly sectioned (when-to-use table, output contracts, chaining patterns, anti-patterns) with nothing that clearly belongs in a separate file. It sits between anchor 4 (good structure, appropriately placed) and anchor 5 (which centers on well-signaled external references); since it exceeds the under-50-line simple-skill exemption and no reference signaling applies, boundary guidance puts it at 4.

Specificity

Names three concrete actions — 'cavecrew-investigator (locate code)', 'cavecrew-builder (1-2 file edit)', 'cavecrew-reviewer (diff review)' — plus the differentiating mechanism 'Their output is compressed'. This matches anchor 4 (several specific actions, minor gaps): it falls short of anchor 5's comprehensive coverage because chaining patterns and verification guidance in the body go unmentioned, but is well above anchor 3's 1-2 actions.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: 'what' is the three named agents with their jobs, and 'when' is the clause 'When to delegate to ... instead of working inline or using `Explore`' (equivalent trigger guidance, so the score-3 cap does not apply). It stays at 4 rather than 5 because the 'when' is framed against alternatives rather than concrete user-spoken trigger phrases.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural task verbs like 'locate code', '1-2 file edit', and 'diff review' are present, and the explicit 'instead of ... using `Explore`' contrast aids routing. A few natural user phrasings are missing ('find where X is defined', 'code review', 'search'), so it fits anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Three uniquely named agents, an explicit contrast with 'working inline or using `Explore`', and a distinct value proposition ('compressed' output) give it a clear niche with minimal conflict risk — a direct match for anchor 5. It is not 4 because there is no real overlap risk with closely related skills; the description itself disambiguates against them.