Conciseness

The body is lean — short sections, no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, every rule earns its place. The one inefficiency is mild duplication: the Workflow steps 2-4 and the "Verification order" section restate the same tests → typecheck/build → direct commands → manual ladder. That is trimmable but minor, fitting the "efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed" anchor rather than the noticeably-verbose anchor 2 or the imperfect anchor 3.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill, guidance is partially concrete: the verification ladder ("Existing tests / Typecheck / build / Narrow direct command checks / Manual or interactive validation") and the explicit Output checklist are actionable. But key details are missing — no examples of how to find and run existing tests, what a "narrow direct verification command" looks like, or what concrete observable evidence to capture. This matches "some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details" rather than the mostly-executable anchor 4.

Workflow Clarity

The process is clearly sequenced with an explicit escalation path (tests first, then typecheck/build, then narrow commands, then manual validation) and decision points ("If coverage is missing", "If direct automation is not enough", "If a check fails, include the failure clearly"). It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no explicit validate → fix → retry loop; a failed check is only reported, with no guidance on iterating toward green. Not a destructive/batch skill, so no cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external references, and none exist (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent). Per the simple-skill scoring note, well-organized sections alone qualify for 5: the body is cleanly split into Goal, Workflow, Verification order, Rules, and Output with no inline content that belongs in a separate file.

Specificity

The description names the domain (change verification) and one concrete action — "Verify that a change really works" — plus context ("before you claim completion"), but stops at a single action. Anchor 4 requires several specific actions, and anchor 2's minimal-generic-action example is less informative than this, so 3 is the best fit.

Completeness

The "what" is clear (verify that a change actually works), but the "when" is only weakly implied by "before you claim completion" and there is no explicit "Use when..." clause, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. It is above anchor 2 because the "what" is concrete, not vague.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant natural keywords are present ("verify", "change", "works", "completion"), but common variations users would say — "test this", "check that it works", "confirm", "prove" — are missing. There is no "Use when..." style trigger phrasing either, matching the anchor for some relevant keywords with missing variations.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Verify that a change really works before you claim completion" carves out a recognizable niche (evidence before completion claims), but it would plausibly fire alongside testing, CI, debugging, and code-review skills. It overlaps with similar skills rather than being clearly distinct (anchor 4) or entirely generic (anchor 2).