Conciseness

The body never explains concepts Claude already knows and is dense with non-generic operational detail, but "via an authorized `operation: propose` request to `registry-events.py`" appears verbatim five times (Skill Contract Writes, Instructions step 4, and three times in Save Results), and the launch-window/deliverability routing is repeated across Scope guard, Instructions step 1, Reference Materials, and Next Best Skill. Not 4 because this repetition is clearly tighten-able; not 2 because there is no filler or padded explanation.

Actionability

Gives concrete, executable specifics: "mention velocity at 3x / 5x / 10x the 7-day baseline for levels 2/3/4", receipt fields "actor, time, status, and platform evidence", named scenario families, and the exact save path `memory/social/crisis-response-planner/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>.md`. Not 5 because key mechanics — receipt requirements and the handoff format — are deferred to external files (human-action-control.md, skill-contract.md) that are not part of this skill's bundle, leaving minor gaps; not 3 because every step is directly executable without pseudocode.

Workflow Clarity

Eight clearly sequenced steps with mode determination and routing checks first, and explicit validation checkpoints throughout: "any missing/partial/unknown receipt keeps that surface OPEN and escalated", "No baseline on file → velocity rows are `NEEDS_INPUT`", and "Do not declare stand-down complete from an unpause proposal alone; missing receipts stay open". Not 4 because the batch pause/unpause and removal operations all have explicit validation and feedback loops, not just most.

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized sections (Quick Start, Skill Contract, Instructions, Reference Materials, Next Best Skill) with a reference list where every entry carries a one-line purpose, and all references one level deep. Not 5 because no bundle files exist in references/scripts/assets and several referenced paths (../../../references/echo-benchmark.md, ../../craft/social-calendar-builder/references/human-action-control.md) point outside the skill directory, so the split cannot be verified and some inlined protocol detail could live in bundled files; not 3 because structure and signaling are genuinely good.

Specificity

Quotes a comprehensive set of concrete actions — "produces a 1-5 severity ladder", "pause ALL scheduled posts AND paid amplification", "a pre-approved holding-statement library", "a spokesperson/approval matrix, and a post-crisis retro template" — but the single nested sentence buries them in implementation detail ("dated state markers dropped to the channels proposal protocol and reconciled post-incident"), which pads rather than sharpens the capability list. Not 5 because the verbosity obscures the otherwise complete action coverage; not 3 because coverage goes far beyond 1-2 actions.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: an "Use when the user asks to..." clause with three concrete quoted trigger phrases, and a full 'what' spanning the ladder, pause rule, statement library, when-NOT-to-post rules, approval matrix, retro template, and gate re-run. Not 4 because neither 'what' nor 'when' is vague or implicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural phrases users would actually say — "build our social crisis protocol", "mentions are exploding — what do we do first", "when do we pause the posting queue" — but misses common synonyms like "PR crisis", "brand backlash", "viral", or "social media emergency". Not 5 for the synonym gap; not 3 because the quoted triggers are genuinely natural rather than jargon.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Occupies a clear niche (social-media crisis protocol) and actively de-risks conflicts with explicit routing: "Not for email deliverability incidents (blocklist, spam-rate spikes) — use deliverability-qa; inside a launch window launch-day-conductor owns incident handling". Not 4 because adjacent-skill overlap is not just minor but explicitly disclaimed.