Conciseness

The ~47-line body is lean: it never explains concepts Claude already knows, and every line gives repo-specific instruction (paths, numbering, front-matter fields, section-level heuristics, boundaries like "Do not update published docs just because an RFC was drafted"). It matches the 5 anchor's 'every token earns its place'; the slight echo between step 8 and the Validation section is a checklist elaboration, not padding that would justify the 4 anchor.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: exact paths (rfc/README.md, rfc/0000-template/README.md, rfc/NNNN-short-title/README.md), exact rules (choose next NNNN, state: draft, hyphenated folder title, GitHub-handle fallback for author), and a conditional lint check. Per the rubric's scoring note, an instruction-only skill needs no code when guidance is this specific — it fully matches the 'copy-paste ready' spirit of the 5 anchor.

Workflow Clarity

The 8-step sequence is clearly ordered (read process docs → read template → pick number → create folder → fill front matter → draft sections → preserve open questions → re-check), with a dedicated Validation checklist before handoff and an explicit feedback loop ("If a missing decision blocks a coherent RFC, ask the user for that decision"). This matches the 5 anchor's explicit validation, error-recovery loop, and checklist; the operation is not destructive or batch, so no cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, and none are needed: the body is under 50 lines and well-organized into Workflow, Writing Standards, and Validation sections, while delegating all template/process detail one level deep to rfc/README.md and rfc/0000-template/README.md instead of inlining it. Per the rubric's guideline for short, self-contained skills, this matches the 5 anchor.

Specificity

"Create OpenShell RFC proposals in rfc/ from a design request" names the domain, input, and output location, with several action verbs (write, draft, start, create, update) appearing in the when-clause. It falls just short of the 5 anchor because the what-clause describes a single composite action rather than enumerating multiple distinct concrete capabilities, and it is more comprehensive than the 3 anchor's '1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive'.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what ("Create OpenShell RFC proposals in rfc/ from a design request") and when ("Use when the user asks to write, draft, start, create, or update an RFC...") with concrete trigger phrases, structurally matching the rubric's 5-anchor example. Not the 4 anchor because the when-clause is fully explicit and trigger-rich, not merely adequate.

Trigger Term Quality

The trigger list "write, draft, start, create, or update an RFC, Request for Comments, architecture proposal, API proposal, process proposal, or cross-cutting design proposal" covers natural verb synonyms and object synonyms users would actually say. This matches the 5 anchor's comprehensive synonym coverage; there are no file-extension variants applicable to RFC directories, so nothing natural is missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is clear (OpenShell RFC process, rfc/ directory, template), but broad trigger objects like "architecture proposal" and "cross-cutting design proposal" create minor overlap risk with a generic design-document skill when a user wants a proposal outside the RFC process. The qualifying clause "that should follow the OpenShell RFC process and template" mitigates this, keeping it above the 3 anchor (somewhat specific but overlapping) but short of the 5 anchor's minimal conflict risk.