Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient procedural prose, but the roi-calculator delegation is repeated five times (intro, 'Done when', Step 7, Reference Materials, Next Best Skill) and the ad-account-auditor non-relation three times, so it could be noticeably tightened. It sits between 'noticeably verbose' (2) and 'efficient' (4) — the padding is redundancy, not over-explanation of known concepts, which keeps it above a 2.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: exact match labels ('matched / double-counted / unmatched'), specific formulas (double-count rate = 'claimed conversions / real orders', lift = 'incremental orders ÷ exposed'), fallback join keys ('order ID... or timestamp + value as a fallback'), and exact memory paths. Minor gaps — the currency 'stated rate' source is unspecified and the attribution-model comparison names models but gives no computation detail — keep it below the fully-specified 5 anchor.

Workflow Clarity

A clear 7-step sequence with an explicit validation gate up front (Step 1 returns 'status: NEEDS_INPUT' if the order-ID export is missing) and a 'Done when' checklist. Not a 5 because there is no error-recovery feedback loop for ambiguous outcomes — e.g. what to do when the timestamp+value fallback match is inconclusive or yields conflicting window normalizations — only that disagreement must be preserved.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a well-sectioned overview (Quick Start, Skill Contract, Data Sources, Instructions, Save Results, Reference Materials, Next Best Skill) with clearly-signaled, one-level-deep, descriptively-labeled references. The organization gap: no bundle files exist (no references/, scripts/, assets/), and every detail reference is a cross-skill hop on deeply-relative paths (e.g. '../../../references/roas-benchmark.md', '../../orchestrate/ad-test-designer/references/measurement-control.md') that do not resolve from the skill's own directory, so navigation depends on a repo layout the skill doesn't control.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — 'de-dups stacked credit against an order-ID truth set, normalizes attribution windows and currency, compares attribution models, and reads incrementality from a geo/holdout test' — which approaches comprehensive coverage. However, the second-person phrasing 'when you suspect Meta and Google are double-counting' triggers the rubric's one-point voice penalty; without it this would be a 5.

Completeness

Both what and when are explicitly answered: 'a standing (monthly) reconciliation workbook that de-dups... normalizes... compares... reads incrementality' (what) and 'Use when platform-reported conversions disagree with GA4/ecommerce, when you suspect Meta and Google are double-counting' (when, with concrete trigger phrases). Clearly matches the top anchor.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural keywords users would actually say — 'platform-reported conversions disagree', 'double-counting the same sales', 'GA4/ecommerce', 'reconciliation'. The insider jargon ('R2 veto', 'RQS gate', 'stacked credit') is boundary guidance rather than triggers, and plainer synonyms like 'duplicate sales' or 'matching conversions to orders' are missing, so not a 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description explicitly fences off three sibling skills — 'Not for the point-in-time R2 veto or RQS gate — use ad-account-auditor; not for the ROI/ROAS ratio math itself — use roi-calculator; not for organic dark-social share attribution... — use dark-social-attributor' — giving it a clear niche with minimal conflict risk.