Conciseness

The body mostly avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but it is noticeably padded: the no-auto-send rule is restated at least four times ("never auto-sends, auto-replies, mass-DMs", "This skill never posts, auto-replies, or DMs", "every reply stays DRAFT for human posting", "nothing is ever auto-sent" in the description echoed again in Scope guard and Skill Contract), and the Scope guard paragraph duplicates exclusion boundaries that reappear verbatim in Reference Materials and Next Best Skill. This fits the score-3 anchor ('mostly efficient but could be tightened') rather than score 4, where only minor instances of over-explanation would remain.

Actionability

Guidance is concrete throughout: an exact taxonomy ("troll (monitor-only: never draft a reply, log and watch), rager, misguided, unhappy-customer, advocate"), exact fields to capture for UGC rights ("holder/subject ref, content ref, organic/paid scope, exact channels/placements, start/expiry, territory..."), exact states ("active | expired | revoked | disputed | unknown"), named scripts ("registry-events.py", "bluesky.py"), and an explicit NEEDS_INPUT fallback. For an instruction-only skill this is mostly executable guidance with minor gaps — the triage-report and handoff-summary formats are delegated to external files not present in the bundle — matching score 4 rather than score 5's 'copy-paste ready' coverage of common cases.

Workflow Clarity

The 8 numbered Instructions give a clear sequence with an explicit validation checklist ("Done when: every item has register/class/tier; every draft has channel/SLA/register and remains draft until a matching human receipt exists...") and receipt-reconciliation loops ('No receipt means not replied', removal requests stay open until every receipt exists), which handles this batch-operation context well. It sits at score 4 rather than 5 because error-recovery paths are not fully explicit — e.g. what to do when a registry proposal is rejected or a register call is ambiguous is only implied by the global ambiguity stop — and the escalation 'stop drafting' rule lacks a re-entry condition.

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is good: a short overview with a Quick Start, a dedicated Reference Materials section where every reference carries a one-line purpose (e.g. "echo-benchmark.md — the H sub-items this skill feeds"), all one level deep, and in-body links are clearly signaled at point of use. No bundle files exist in this skill (references/, scripts/, assets/ are absent; every link targets files outside the skill directory, which cannot be verified here), and some dense procedural detail — the UGC rights field list, the escalation-matrix row definitions, the sentiment-inversion table spec — is inlined in Instructions where a reference file would fit better, so it matches score 4 ('good structure, minor organization gaps') rather than score 5's clean overview-to-reference split.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete capabilities — "a ranked triage queue with register detection (sincere / ironic / performative / parasocial...)", "a commenter taxonomy (troll monitor-only / rager / misguided / unhappy-customer / advocate) with a response-tier ladder and per-channel SLAs", "an escalation matrix ending at the crisis path", "a moderation ladder plus house rules", and "a UGC curation-and-rights mode" — comprehensive coverage with no generic filler. It matches the score-5 anchor (multiple specific concrete actions, comprehensive) and is clearly above score 4, where minor coverage gaps would remain.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: "Use when the user asks to [four concrete trigger phrases]" for when, and "produces a ranked triage queue with register detection... escalation matrix... moderation ladder... UGC curation-and-rights mode" for what, plus an explicit negative boundary ("Not for launch-window feedback triage — use launch-feedback-synthesizer"). This matches the score-5 anchor (clear what AND when with concrete trigger phrases) and exceeds score 4, where the 'when' would be less explicit.

Trigger Term Quality

Quoted natural phrases — "triage our comments, DMs, and mentions", "draft replies to this thread", "can we repost this fan post", "set up inbox SLAs and an escalation path" — are phrases users would actually say, plus bilingual keywords. It falls just below the score-5 anchor because common variations like "respond to comments", "inbox management", or "handle angry customers" are absent, and the density of internal jargon ("sentiment-inversion table", "语域识别") dilutes the natural-language signal; it is clearly above score 3, where keywords would be only partially relevant.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche — always-on social inbox triage with register detection and UGC rights — with distinct triggers and an explicit disambiguation against the closest neighbor ("Not for launch-window feedback triage — use launch-feedback-synthesizer") and a hard no-auto-send boundary ("nothing is ever auto-sent"). Minimal conflict risk; matches the score-5 anchor and is well above score 4's 'minor overlap risk with closely related skills'.