Conciseness

The body is pure imperative guidance with zero padding — no concept explanations (no 'what a retro is', no library primers), and dense rules like "Cluster only on >=3 evidences. One anecdote is not a finding." and "Dead hypotheses die here, silently." assume Claude's competence throughout. Re-checking anchor 4 ('minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed'): nothing in the body is over-explained, so the 5 anchor ('every token earns its place') is the best fit.

Actionability

Concrete commands are given directly — `ywai eval run --days <n> --worktree <w> --json`, `GET /api/evals/runs`, `git log --since=<n>.days`, `mem_save` — and the full command list (verified copy-paste-ready curl/SQL in references/queries.md) is one link away. It is not a 5 because a few items in the body are named but not executable on their own ("repo check command + hooks + CI workflow" never specifies the command, and the freshness SQL is only described as "raw SQL, read-only" in the body).

Workflow Clarity

Seven named, sequenced steps (Scope → Collect → Validate → Cluster → Interrogate → Propose → Report+save) with explicit validation gates: freshness check before analysis ("A blind tracker is finding #1, not a footnote"), thresholds applied at step 3 ("thin window → widen AND retitle"), evidence minimum (">=3 evidences"), and a falsification loop at step 5 ("write the disproof before the proposal... Run it"). Recovery paths are stated ("One failed source never stops the run") and the workflow is read-only with output confined to the OS temp dir, so no destructive-operation cap applies. This matches the 5 anchor (explicit validation steps + feedback loops + checklist-style Rules section); anchor 4's 'minor validation gaps' does not describe this body.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a lean overview with clearly signaled, purpose-labeled, one-level-deep references — "Full command list in [references/queries.md]", "Apply [references/thresholds.md]", "Method in [references/analysis.md]", "Report as HTML (see [references/report.md])", plus `assets/report-template.html` — and every referenced path was verified to exist as a substantive file (queries.md 65 lines of ready commands, thresholds.md decision table, analysis.md 50 lines, template 203 lines). References do not nest further (report.md points only to the sibling template asset), matching the 5 anchor for well-signaled one-level-deep splitting.

Specificity

"Weekly workflow retro over sessions, evals, memory" names the domain with three concrete data sources and a cadence, comparable to anchor 3's 'domain + 1-2 concrete actions' ("Processes PDF files and extracts content") — but only one operation ("retro") is stated, and what the retro actually does (find friction, cluster evidence, propose fixes) is never named. It is above anchor 2 ('names the domain but actions are minimal or generic' — "Processes PDF files") because the sources and cadence add real specificity, but below anchor 4's 'several specific actions'.

Completeness

Both halves are present: a 'what' ("Weekly workflow retro over sessions, evals, memory") and explicit trigger guidance ("Trigger: retro, auditar semana"), which counts as the 'Use when...' equivalent and avoids the cap-at-3 penalty. It fits anchor 4 ('has both what and when; when could be more explicit or specific'): the trigger list is narrow, and the 'what' is terse enough that the actual outputs (findings, proposed fixes, HTML report) must be inferred — not the anchor-5 standard of clearly answering both with concrete trigger phrases.

Trigger Term Quality

"Trigger: retro, auditar semana." includes "retro", a phrase users would naturally say, but the coverage is sparse — common variations like "retrospective", "weekly review", "postmortem", or "what went wrong this week" are absent, and "auditar semana" serves only Spanish-language phrasing. This matches anchor 3 ('some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms') rather than anchor 4's 'good keyword coverage, a few natural terms missing'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"workflow-retro" with triggers "retro" / "auditar semana" carves a clear niche (periodic retrospective over session/eval/memory telemetry) that few skills would claim, matching anchor 4 ('mostly distinct; minor overlap risk'). It is not anchor 5 because "retro" alone can collide with sprint-retrospective/agile skills and "auditar" with general audit-style skills, leaving minor overlap with closely related territory.