Conciseness

Nearly every line carries non-obvious domain knowledge Claude cannot be assumed to have (verifier evidence rules, the one-line parser constraint, propose_goal's 1,500-character limit and decline semantics, the goalMaxTurns restart behavior). It fits anchor 4 (efficient, minor instances that could be trimmed): the Budget rules-of-thumb bullet is wordy, and the "Needs clarification"/<TODO> rules appear in both Step 3 and Step 5 with some redundancy. Not anchor 5 because a few passages restate the same constraint twice rather than trusting one statement; clearly above anchor 3 since there is no padding or explanation of concepts Claude already knows.

Actionability

Quotes: the exact objective template ("Outcome: ... Done when: 1) <command> exits 0 and its output shows <...> (paste that line)"), the 10-item self-check checklist, named tools ("Call `get_goal`", "Call `propose_goal`", "Ask with `ask_user_question`, 1–3 questions in one call"), and four concrete weak→strong worked examples. Guidance is copy-paste ready with specific commands, patterns, and literal hand-off output, matching anchor 5; the examples cover the common cases (perf goal, PR comments, non-goals, irreversible actions).

Workflow Clarity

A clearly sequenced Step 0–5 workflow with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: Step 5's self-check ("Check every line before printing: 1. ... 10. ..."), the failure path ("If an essential item remains unresolved ... print only a draft marked 'Needs clarification' ... Do not call `propose_goal`"), and the recovery rules for a declined proposal ("stop, do not ask about it, and do not propose the same or a reworded objective again"). This matches anchor 5's explicit validation steps, error-recovery feedback loops, and a checklist; the workflow involves no destructive/batch operations, so no cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent) and the body references no external files, so there are no broken or nested references; sections are well-organized with clear headers (Step 0–5, Weak→strong, self-check, hand-off). This fits anchor 4 (good structure, content mostly appropriately placed, minor organization gaps): at ~110 lines, the "How Goals are judged" background section and the verbose Budget/settings details are inline material that could partly be externalized or tightened to keep SKILL.md leaner. Not anchor 5 because that anchor expects well-signaled one-level-deep references or a lean under-50-line single-purpose body; not anchor 3 since nothing is buried and no clearly-separate content (like a long API reference) is inlined.

Specificity

Quotes: "Turn a fuzzy intention into a /goal objective the Goal verifier can actually judge - one outcome, numbered binary 'Done when' checks that leave evidence in the transcript, guardrails, a budget, and a block protocol" and "This skill only writes the objective; it never starts the work". Multiple specific concrete actions with the exact structural elements of the output (one outcome, numbered binary checks, guardrails, budget, block protocol, plus draft-vs-tighten modes), matching the anchor for comprehensive, specific coverage. It is well above the anchor for 4 ("several specific actions; minor gaps") since both modes and every output component are named explicitly; third-person/imperative voice, so no voice penalty applies.

Completeness

Quotes: what — "Turn a fuzzy intention into a /goal objective the Goal verifier can actually judge..."; when — "Use when the user wants to set or define a goal, asks whether a goal is good enough, or says 'keep going until X'"; plus explicit usage syntax ("Usage - /goal-draft <what you want done>, or /goal-draft <existing goal> to tighten it") and a boundary ("only writes the objective; it never starts the work"). This clearly and explicitly answers both what and when with concrete trigger phrases, matching anchor 5 exactly; it exceeds anchor 4 because the when-clause is specific rather than improvable.

Trigger Term Quality

Quotes: "Use when the user wants to set or define a goal, asks whether a goal is good enough, or says 'keep going until X'". Natural phrases users would say ("set or define a goal", "is a goal good enough", "keep going until") are present, fitting anchor 4 (good keyword coverage, a few natural terms missing). It does not reach anchor 5 because common synonyms like "create a goal", "write a goal", or "goal setting" are absent, and it is clearly above anchor 3 ("some relevant keywords but missing common variations") since it includes three distinct natural trigger phrasings.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Quotes: "/goal objective the Goal verifier can actually judge", "set or define a goal", "keep going until X". It carves out a clear niche (drafting Goal objectives for the Goal verifier) with distinct triggers that would not naturally fire for planning, loop, or task-execution skills; it also disambiguates by stating "it never starts the work". Fits anchor 5 (clear niche with distinct triggers, minimal conflict risk) and is clearly above anchor 4, whose overlap concerns ("minor overlap risk with closely related skills") barely apply here.