Conciseness

Every line is a directive with zero padding ('Gate first. Trivial per the method's triviality gate: just do it, verify with the one obvious check, report in two sentences.'). It assumes Claude's competence and never explains concepts Claude already knows, matching the 5 anchor ('every token earns its place').

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully executable: explicit budgets ('One batch plus one follow-up batch is the budget'), counts ('1-3 parallel subagents'), copy-paste-ready attacker prompts ('Read this diff and prove the change is wrong or incomplete'), hard bounds ('3 failed fix-verify cycles on the same issue... means stop'), and a precisely specified plan-artifact shape. Per the rubric's scoring note, absence of code in an instruction-only skill is not penalized when the guidance is this concrete.

Workflow Clarity

Four stages are clearly sequenced (PLAN, EXECUTE, VERIFY, AUDIT/REPORT) with explicit validation ('Run the named verification yourself, both halves'), a decision gate ('Task-shaped and reversible: proceed... Plan-first shape: present the plan artifact and STOP for approval'), feedback loops ('A finding that survives your own check goes back to Stage 2 as new work'), and an execution checklist — all elements of the 5 anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

The rule details are delegated one level deep to the clearly-signaled sibling skill ('read its SKILL.md first... installed alongside this skill (in this plugin's skills/fable-method/ directory, or ~/.claude/skills/fable-method/ for manual installs)'), and this file holds only the orchestration layer it uniquely owns. The ~46-line body is cleanly sectioned per stage; nothing that belongs elsewhere is inlined.

Specificity

The description enumerates multiple concrete actions covering the entire pipeline: 'parallel evidence subagents, one committed plan, surgical execution with an intent gate, adversarial verification agents, honest outcome-first report'. This is comprehensive with no capability gaps, matching the 5 anchor rather than 4 ('minor gaps in coverage').

Completeness

Both questions are answered explicitly: the 'what' ('End-to-end orchestrated workflow that runs a task the way Fable ran sessions' with named stages) and the 'when' ('Use for non-trivial multi-step tasks when the user says...') with concrete trigger phrases. This matches the 5 anchor precisely; the 'Use when...' clause is present so the cap at 3 does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

Explicit natural trigger phrases are quoted verbatim: '/fable-loop', 'run the fable loop', 'do this the way Fable would' — exactly the phrasings a user would naturally say to invoke this skill. No relevant natural variants are missing, fitting the 5 anchor.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It carves a clear niche with name-scoped triggers and explicitly disambiguates its two nearest neighbors: 'For the rules alone without orchestration, use fable-method; for large multi-phase projects, prefer the GSD workflow and use this inside phases.' Conflict risk is minimal, matching the 5 anchor rather than 4 since the disambiguation is explicit rather than implied.