Conciseness

The body assumes Claude's competence (no concept explanations) but is noticeably padded with repetition: the five-builder list appears in the intro, scope guard, and instruction 6, and the exclusion routing recurs in the opening, scope guard, and Next Best Skill sections. Not 2: the density is mostly load-bearing routing detail, not generic explanation; not 4: the duplicated lists and long compound sentences could be meaningfully tightened.

Actionability

Concrete instruction-only guidance: exact memory paths (memory/narrative-registry/, memory/claims/claims-ledger.md, memory/events/claims.ndjson), the precise fields each spec must name (pillar, lead claim + ledger status, proof module, objection reframe), and explicit 'operation: propose' to registry-events.py. Not 5: no worked example or template of a message-match spec or handoff brief is shown inline — the shapes are deferred to skill-contract.md, leaving minor execution gaps.

Workflow Clarity

Seven numbered steps in clear order with explicit checkpoints: step 1 stops the run with NEEDS_INPUT and routes if no canon exists, step 4 builds the drift list with 'do not soften a real contradiction', step 5 sweeps claims, and a 'Done when' checklist plus termination rules close it out. Not 4: validation and failure routing are explicit at every risky point, including ask-before-write for memory.

Progressive Disclosure

Well-organized sections (Quick Start, Skill Contract, Data Sources, Instructions, Save Results, Reference Materials, Next Best Skill) with one-level-deep, per-link-annotated references; no bundle files exist, and all external references (tale-benchmark.md, CONNECTORS.md, SECURITY.md, sibling SKILL.mds) are clearly signaled. Not 5: the long scope-guard routing paragraph duplicates content that already lives in the description and Reference Materials, and could be split out or trimmed.

Specificity

Multiple concrete actions are named — "maps the narrative-registry canon onto every flagship surface (homepage, pricing, store listing, sales deck, social bio, docs, email) as a per-surface message-match spec — what claim, pillar, proof, and objection reframe each surface must carry — and cuts a handoff brief to each discipline's creative builder" — with the surfaces and target builders enumerated. Not 4: coverage of what the skill does is comprehensive, not 'minor gaps'.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: "Use when the user asks to 'plan how our narrative lands on every surface'..." gives concrete trigger phrases, and the mapping/brief-cutting description fully states what it does. Not 4: the 'when' is explicit with quoted trigger phrases, not merely present.

Trigger Term Quality

Opens with natural quoted triggers ("plan how our narrative lands on every surface", "write per-surface message-match specs", "brief each creative builder from the canon") plus a broad keyword set (surface names, handoff brief, consistency). Not 5: coverage is strong but ecosystem-specific — common synonyms a user might say (e.g. 'keep our messaging consistent across pages') are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche with explicit exclusion routing to named siblings — "not for the tier-scoped launch asset manifest — use launch-asset-packager; not for scoring cross-surface consistency — use narrative-quality-auditor; not for claim adjudication — use offer-claims-registry". Not 4: conflict risk is actively disambiguated, not just minor.