Conciseness

The body is lean — a tactic table, a parameter table, and three tight steps — and never explains concepts Claude already knows. Not 5 because the default chain "simplify,propagate-values,ctx-simplify" is repeated three times (Step 1 Result, the note under the code block, and the Parameters table) and the Action/Expectation/Result scaffolding adds some trimmable overhead; not 3 because the redundancy is minor and everything else earns its tokens.

Actionability

Three copy-paste-ready bash commands cover the common cases (--formula with --vars, --file with a custom --tactics chain, and --debug), and the full parameter table matches the actual scripts/simplify.py argparse interface exactly. This matches the 'fully executable, copy-paste ready, specific examples cover the common cases' anchor; nothing below it fits better.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1–3 are clearly sequenced (choose tactics → run → interpret) and Step 2 includes a decision branch ("If the output is simpler, pass it to solve or prove. If unchanged, try a different tactic chain"). Not 5 because there are no explicit validation/error checkpoints (e.g., what to do when a tactic name is rejected or z3 is missing), which is a minor validation gap; not 3 because the sequence is fully defined with a built-in retry path rather than merely listed.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well organized (three step headings plus a Parameters section), the only bundle file (scripts/simplify.py) is referenced correctly and exists, and the tactic table is decision-relevant inline content rather than misplaced reference material. Not 5 because the body runs ~75 lines, above the under-50-line simple-skill exception, and the per-tactic documentation is a natural candidate for a references/ file if the skill grows; not 3 because nothing is buried and no content is inappropriately placed.

Specificity

"Reduce formula complexity using Z3 tactic chains" plus "configurable tactic pipelines for boolean, arithmetic, and bitvector simplification" names a concrete action and the supported theories, matching the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor. Not 5 because coverage is not comprehensive (no mention of the SMT-LIB2 input format or the common use cases); not 3 because it goes beyond naming the domain to list multiple concrete capabilities.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (reduce formula complexity via Z3 tactic chains) but there is no 'when' clause at all — no "Use when..." or equivalent trigger guidance, which caps completeness at 3 per the judging guidelines. Not 4 because the 'when' is not even weakly implied, and not 2 because the 'what' half is explicit and specific.

Trigger Term Quality

"formula", "Z3", "simplification", "tactic", and the theory names ("boolean, arithmetic, bitvector") are natural terms a user would say when needing this skill. Not 5 because common variations like "SMT", "SMT-LIB", "constraint", or the ".smt2" extension are missing; not 3 because keyword coverage is genuinely good, not partial.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Z3 tactic chains and formula simplification occupy a clear niche that would rarely fire for unrelated skills. Not 5 because the skill body reveals sibling skills (solve, prove, optimize) where a user saying "simplify before solving" could plausibly want one of those; not 3 because the description's scope is distinctly narrower than generic simplification skills.