The body is lean and command-driven with no over-explanation of concepts Claude already knows, but the completion-gate rule is restated across the Contract, Agent Loop, Completion Gate, and Lifecycle sections, so it could be tightened; this matches the anchor for mostly efficient content with some redundancy. It is above 1 because there is no padded concept explanation, but below 3 because not every token earns its place given the repeated gate restatement.

Concrete executable commands such as "omx performance-goal create --objective ... --evaluator-command ... --slug ..." and "omx performance-goal checkpoint --slug ... --status pass --evidence ..." with specific flags, example values, and named tool calls are copy-paste ready, matching the anchor for fully executable code/commands. It is below no level because the guidance is complete and concrete rather than pseudocode.

The numbered Agent Loop (1-6) sequences the work with explicit validation checkpoints (evaluator contract, pass/fail/blocked checkpointing, the Completion Gate state condition) and a feedback loop for error recovery, matching the anchor for a clear sequence with explicit validation and feedback loops. It is above 2 because checkpoints are explicit rather than missing or implicit.

The content is organized into clear, well-labeled sections (Contract, CLI, Agent Loop, Completion Gate) in a self-contained single-purpose skill with no bundle files and no need for external references, fitting the simple-skills allowance for a 3 with well-organized sections. It is above 2 because the structure is clean and nothing that should be split is crammed inline without signaling.

Quotes "Run an evaluator-gated performance optimization workflow over Codex goal mode with durable OMX artifacts and safe goal handoffs" name the domain and several concrete modifiers, but it is a single compound action rather than a list of multiple specific concrete actions, matching the anchor for naming domain and some actions but not comprehensively. It is above a 1 because concrete elements are present, but below 3 because no enumerated set of distinct actions is given.

The description clearly answers "what" (run an evaluator-gated performance optimization workflow) but contains no "Use when..." clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, so completeness is capped at 2 per the judging guidelines. It is above 1 because the "what" is explicit, but below 3 because the "when" is absent rather than stated.

"performance optimization" is a natural keyword a user might say, but "Codex goal mode", "OMX artifacts", and "goal handoffs" are product-specific jargon with missing common user-facing variations, fitting the anchor for some relevant keywords but missing common variations. It is above 1 because a genuine natural term exists, but below 3 because coverage of plain user language is poor.

The product-specific framing around "Codex goal mode" and "OMX artifacts" carves out a clear niche with distinct triggers unlikely to conflict with other skills, matching the anchor for a clear niche with distinct triggers. It is above 2 because it is far more specific than generic "works with files" phrasing.