Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes Claude's competence (no explanations of known concepts), but the governance phrase 'via an authorized operation: propose request to registry-events.py' and the 'this skill never adjudicates' caveat are repeated roughly five times across the intro, Skill Contract, Instructions, and Save Results, and the Scope guard re-states the description's full exclusion list. This matches the 3 anchor (mostly efficient but could be tightened) rather than 2, since the padding is repetition of sentences, not whole padded sections.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is fully executable: exact read/write paths (memory/narrative/story-bank-builder/, memory/claims/claims-ledger.md), concrete story-type definitions, an explicit arc-beat pattern (situation → tension → change → outcome), decision rules ('a story that fits no pillar is either orphaned (drop it) or a signal the pillar set is incomplete'), and a hard stop condition (NEEDS_INPUT). This matches the 5 anchor under the code-vs-instruction scoring note — no code is required, and the specific guidance covers the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

The seven numbered steps are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: step 1 gates on pillar existence with a NEEDS_INPUT stop, step 6 flags pillars lacking Measured or ledger-approved proof as an E-dimension risk, the 'Done when' section is a completion checklist, and conditional Next Best Skill routing handles the error-recovery paths. This matches the 5 anchor (clear sequence, explicit validation, feedback routing) rather than 4, where checkpoints would only be mostly present.

Progressive Disclosure

The body has good section structure and a dedicated, annotated Reference Materials section with one-level-deep references, but no bundle files exist alongside SKILL.md (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ directories) — every link points outside the skill directory via fragile ../../../ relative paths that cannot be verified from the bundle — and the same cross-skill links are duplicated inline throughout the prose. This matches the 4 anchor (good structure, minor organization gaps) rather than 5.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — 'assembles reusable narrative units — origin, founder, customer, transformation, and proof stories — each tagged to a claims-ledger ID and a message-house pillar, with every proof labeled Measured / User-provided / [needs source]' — which matches the 5 anchor (multiple specific concrete actions, comprehensive coverage); it is not a 4 because no meaningful capability within the niche is left out.

Completeness

Both questions are explicitly answered: 'when' via the opening 'Use when the user asks to...' with three concrete trigger phrases, and 'what' via the assemble/tag/label statement. This clearly matches the 5 anchor and exceeds 4 because the 'when' clause is explicit with quoted trigger phrases rather than merely present.

Trigger Term Quality

The quoted triggers ('build a story bank', 'collect our origin and customer stories', 'assemble reusable proof stories for the message') are natural phrases a user would say, but common variations such as 'case studies', 'testimonials', or 'customer success stories' are missing, matching the 4 anchor (good coverage, a few natural terms missing) rather than 5 (comprehensive synonyms).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Four explicit negative boundaries ('Not for authoring the message house... use message-system-architect', 'not for brand voice... use brand-language-codifier', 'not for finished long-form prose... use content-writer', 'not for adjudicating whether a proof is true... use offer-claims-registry') give it a clear niche with distinct triggers and minimal conflict risk, matching the 5 anchor.