Conciseness

The body never explains concepts Claude already knows, but it restates the same guardrails repeatedly: "via an authorized `operation: propose` request to `registry-events.py`" appears five-plus times, and the no-posting/no-engagement-automation rule is repeated in the scope guard, step 2, step 6, and step 7. This matches 'mostly efficient but… could be tightened'; it is not score 2 because the redundancy is policy emphasis in a compliance skill rather than padded conceptual explanation.

Actionability

Guidance is concrete for an instruction-only skill: exact roster fields (`advocate_ref`, disclosure line, opt-in date, voluntary-basis evidence), "3+ distinct angles", a 3-7 day stagger, and an enumerated receipt shape (channel/account, kit hash, actor ref, timestamp, status, live evidence). It falls short of fully copy-paste-ready because no worked example of a disclosure line, a per-person kit skeleton, or a blueprint outline is shown — minor gaps rather than the missing specifics of anchor 3.

Workflow Clarity

Eight cleanly sequenced steps are backed by an explicit validation checklist ("Done when: the mode is decided; every roster row has all four fields; … posting windows are staggered; … rights; … remain planned until the advocate returns a matching human-action receipt") plus explicit failure handling ("block expired/revoked/disputed/unknown rights", "no receipt means not posted", missing opt-in evidence routed to open-loops). This matches the checklist-and-validation anchor; anchor 4 would leave checkpoints implicit, which they are not.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well organized (Quick Start, Skill Contract, Instructions, Reference Materials, Next Best Skill) with one-level-deep, clearly signaled references. However, no bundle files exist in this skill (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories), all detail lives inline in a single ~75-line file, and several links route through other skills' folders (e.g., ../social-calendar-builder/references/human-action-control.md, ../../host/social-quality-auditor/SKILL.md) — minor organization gaps that keep it below the clean one-level-deep split of anchor 5.

Specificity

The description enumerates multiple concrete deliverables — "voluntary opt-in roster spec", "share kits with mandatory per-person variation", "staggered human posting windows plus anti-pod guardrails", "per-person material-connection disclosure lines per FTC and 《互联网广告管理办法》", and "a Slack/Teams distribution spec" — matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor. It stays in third person ("produces") and contains no vague filler, so it is not the level below, where coverage would show minor gaps.

Completeness

It explicitly answers 'when' with a concrete "Use when the user asks to…" clause listing trigger phrases, and 'what' by enumerating the blueprint's components (roster spec, share kits, posting windows, disclosures, distribution spec). It also adds an explicit negative boundary ("Not for paid creator campaigns — use campaign-planner"), fitting the top anchor exactly; anchor 4 would require the 'when' to be less explicit, which it is not.

Trigger Term Quality

It quotes natural user phrasings ("design an employee advocacy program", "set up founder-led sharing", "build a share kit for the team") and adds bilingual synonyms (员工倡导/创始人IP分享/内部分享计划/披露合规), giving comprehensive coverage including synonyms. Only a handful of minor English variants (e.g., "employee sharing program") are absent, which keeps it clearly above anchor 4's 'a few natural terms missing' rather than at it.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The employee-advocacy/founder-led-sharing niche is distinct and the description actively routes away the nearest conflicts ("Not for paid creator campaigns — use campaign-planner"), giving minimal conflict risk. It is not score 4, which would require noticeable overlap risk with closely related skills; the disambiguation is explicit.