Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes domain competence — it never explains what DMARC, MPP, or suppression lists are — so nearly every token earns its place. It sits at 4 rather than 5 because the file lists are repeated three times ("Runtime Reads", "Runtime and Setup", "Reference Materials" all re-list auditor-runbook.md, scoring-semantics.md, and send-benchmark.md) and the odd §2/§3/§5 numbering adds noise.

Actionability

Concrete, executable instruction-only guidance: exact status strings ("return `score_state: NOT_SCORED` / `score_confidence: not_scored`"), an exact env resolution (`AARON_SKILLS_ROOT="${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT:-...}"`), a concrete persistence path pattern (`memory/audits/email/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>.md`), and a named validator command (`validate-audit-artifact.py ... --relative-path`). Minor gaps keep it from 5: the scorer invocation itself is delegated to an out-of-bundle file and worked examples give scores without the criterion-level math.

Workflow Clarity

A clear sequence is present — declare profile, freeze evidence, score S1..D5, verify the four vetoes, run the typed scorer, report with the exact typed header — with an explicit "Validation Checkpoints" checklist and a validate→persist→revalidate feedback loop for the one write operation. It is not 5 because the flow is fragmented across many sections, the §-numbered sections appear out of order with no §4, and error-recovery detail lives in external files rather than inline.

Progressive Disclosure

Sectioning is decent and the one bundled file (references/auditor-runtime.md, a generated 458-line framework snapshot) is a real, one-level-deep reference. But five of the six referenced detail files (`auditor-runbook.md`, `scoring-semantics.md`, `send-benchmark.md`, `runtime-invocation.md`, `measurement-protocol.md`) resolve via `../../../references/` outside the skill directory and are absent from the bundle, and the reference lists are duplicated across three sections — 'some structure but could be better organized' rather than the mostly-clean 4.

Specificity

"runs a typed 20-item SEND profile with authentication, consent, opt-out, and claim veto checks on own evidence" names several concrete, concrete-scoped actions. It falls short of the 5 anchor because the produced output (EQS score / gate verdict) is only implied via the Chinese summary, and the trailing bilingual keywords add no capability detail.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: what ("runs a typed 20-item SEND profile with ... veto checks") and when ("Use when the user asks to ..." with two concrete trigger phrases), and even adds explicit when-not-to-use boundaries. This matches the 5 anchor's 'clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases'; below it (4) would require the 'when' to be less explicit, which it is not.

Trigger Term Quality

Quotes natural trigger phrases users would say — "audit an email program" and "is this campaign safe to send" — plus EQS/SEND and Chinese equivalents. A few natural variations (e.g., "pre-send check", "email QA", "is this safe to send") are absent, matching the 'good coverage, a few natural terms missing' anchor rather than the comprehensive 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Not for building deliverability setup — use deliverability-qa; not for designing lifecycle flows — use email-sequence-designer" carves out a clear niche with explicit routing away from adjacent skills, so conflict risk is minimal — squarely the 5 anchor.