Conciseness

The body does not explain concepts Claude already knows, but it repeats the same governance caveat several times — 'never writes `memory/launch-registry/` records directly … via an authorized `operation: propose` request to `registry-events.py`' appears in the scope guard, the Writes bullet, the Promotes bullet, and Save Results, and the Reference Materials list restates the scope-guard disambiguations ('the return math this skill does not do', etc.). Mostly efficient with repeated material that could be consolidated fits the score-3 anchor; it is not 4 because the repetition is more than a minor trim.

Actionability

The 8-step Instructions carry concrete, executable rules ('own attributed analytics are truth; platform self-reports stay separate', 'Post-hoc targets must be labeled reconstructed', 'emit a provisional recommendation rather than a terminal call', '`retro_status: PROVISIONAL | NEEDS_INPUT`') and Quick Start supplies copy-ready prompts. This is mostly actionable guidance with minor gaps, matching the score-4 anchor; it is not 5 because the core deliverables (the actual-vs-target table, 5-Whys chain, learning entries) have no inline example or template — their formats are delegated entirely to external skill-contract.md sections.

Workflow Clarity

The numbered 1–8 sequence includes explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: step 1 gates on matching receipts ('Missing or partial receipts keep the launch join open and the retro provisional'), step 5 downgrades to a provisional recommendation on incomplete windows, step 8 hands the missing receipt/window list back instead of proceeding, and the 'Done when' criteria define terminal state with provisional fallback statuses. This matches the score-5 anchor — clear sequence with explicit validation, error-recovery paths, and a completion checklist.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well-organized and each reference is clearly signaled with a one-line purpose, but scored against the actual bundle: no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories exist, so every link points outside the skill directory (e.g. '../../../references/ramp-benchmark.md', '../../assemble/launch-asset-packager/references/action-control.md') and the operational scripts named in the body ('scripts/connectors/hn.py', 'registry-events.py') are not present — no reference target is verifiable within the bundle. References present but not resolvable in the bundle leaves this at the score-3 anchor; it is not 4 because key referenced materials cannot be confirmed to exist.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — 'a per-channel actual-vs-target table', 'a 5-Whys chain on the single largest miss', 'keep / kill / change decisions per channel', '3-5 actionable learnings', and 'an outcome snapshot submitted to the launch registry' — with measurement provenance spelled out ('every figure labeled Measured / User-provided / Estimated'). This is comprehensive coverage of the skill's concrete outputs, matching the score-5 anchor; it is not score 4 because there are no meaningful gaps in the action inventory.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: 'what' via 'produces a structured D1/W1/M1 retrospective — …' with all deliverables enumerated, and 'when' via the opening 'Use when the user asks to …' clause containing three concrete trigger phrases. This matches the score-5 anchor exactly; it is not 4 because the 'when' is fully explicit, not merely present.

Trigger Term Quality

Trigger phrases are natural — "run a launch retro / post-mortem", "compare launch results vs targets by channel", "decide what to keep or kill for the next launch" — but common variations like the spelled-out 'retrospective', 'postmortem', 'lessons learned', or 'close out the launch' are absent. Good keyword coverage with a few natural terms missing sits between the 3 and 5 anchors, noticeably above the midpoint, so 4; it is not 5 because synonym coverage is not comprehensive.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description carves out a clear niche and explicitly disambiguates the nearest competing skills — 'Not for return math (CPA / ROI) — use roi-calculator; not for the stakeholder-facing report writeup — use report-generator; not for a metric deep-dive — use performance-analyzer'. Clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk matches the score-5 anchor.