Conciseness

The body is dense with environment-specific information Claude cannot infer (instrument names, file paths, surface taxonomy, headless contract) and mostly earns its tokens. It sits at 4 rather than 5 because of a few rhetorical flourishes and rationale passages that could be trimmed — e.g. 'a guardrail nobody has seen fire is decoration, not protection' and the paragraph beginning 'The split rests on where enforcement pressure lives...' — and it never devolves into the level-3 pattern of explaining things Claude already knows.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill, the guidance is fully concrete: exact instruments to read ('trace_timeline / trace_summary', 'omc session friction report'), exact paths ('.omc/logs/', '.omc/notepads/*/issues.md', '.omc/refit/pending-proposals.md'), a copy-ready proposal format ('finding → surface → intended change' plus one line of instrument evidence), and a precise verification procedure for new checks (run clean, demonstrate failing on a deliberate violation, revert). Per the code-vs-instruction scoring note, the absence of code is not penalized because the guidance is directly executable.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is explicit and well-gated: read instruments first ('The survey starts from OMC's instruments, not from a checklist'), present findings ranked, 'Stop for user approval' with per-line veto, write approved findings to their surfaces with a pre-write discipline check, then record where each landed. Validation checkpoints are strong — the 'must be proven to bite before it counts as landed: run it clean once, then demonstrate it failing on a deliberately introduced violation, then revert the violation' loop is a textbook validate-fix-retry feedback loop — and the headless variant re-anchors the same approval gate. No destructive or batch write occurs without an explicit validation step, so no cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill has no bundle files (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ exist), and the ~46-line body is under the 50-line threshold with well-organized, clearly headed sections (Evidence first, Four fix-owner surfaces, Proposal and landing, Headless refit, Output). Per the simple-skill scoring note, progressive disclosure scores 5 on well-organized sections alone when no external references are needed, and nothing here would benefit from being split out.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('Cross-session environment retrospective driven by OMC's own instrumentation') and enumerates several concrete elements: specific inputs ('trace timelines, friction reports, logs, and plan notepads') and the four fix surfaces ('deterministic check, steering volume, tooling, or information access'). It is not a level-5 comprehensive action list because the operating verbs are abstract ('retrospective', 'lands on the surface') rather than a full inventory of concrete actions; it is above level 3 because multiple specific capabilities are explicitly stated, not just 1-2.

Completeness

The 'what' is clearly stated (survey OMC instrumentation and route each finding to the surface that owns its fix, with nothing written without user approval), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which caps this dimension at 3 per the judging guidelines. It is not a 2 because the 'what' is concrete and detailed, not vague.

Trigger Term Quality

There are some relevant keywords ('retrospective', 'logs', 'friction reports'), but the description is heavy on environment-specific jargon ('trace timelines', 'plan notepads', 'surfaces') and misses the natural phrases a user would say, such as 'environment audit', 'retro', 'post-mortem', or 'improve the setup'. It matches the level-3 anchor (some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms) and not level 4, which requires broad natural-term coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description carves out a clear niche (cross-session environment retrospective over OMC instrumentation) that is unlikely to collide with unrelated skills. It falls short of the level-5 anchor ('clear niche with distinct triggers') because the distinct triggers themselves are absent — the description relies on jargon specificity rather than explicit trigger phrases, leaving minor overlap risk with closely related retrospective/review skills.