Conciseness

The body is dense, directive prose that assumes competence — no concept explanations, and lines like "Naming a file isn't grounding" earn their tokens. It falls short of 'every token earns its place' because Phase E restates the pattern-vs-single-instance point three times (intro, the two-deviations bullet, and the "Use judgment" paragraph) and phrases like "This is the exhaust-the-design-space principle skill made concrete" add little.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout for an orchestration skill: "Open a todolist with one entry per phase", "Run the **arena** skill with the design-sketch task", "Pass `references/runner-prompt.md` as each runner's prompt", named runner defaults (`opus`, `sonnet`, `haiku`), and a specific list of scrap tells. Not a 5 because nothing is copy-paste ready and mechanics like how to invoke arena or what 'the design-sketch task' literally is stay implicit.

Workflow Clarity

Five phases are named and sequenced up front with a todolist checkpoint, and error-recovery feedback loops are explicit: Phase D mandates surfacing deviations, Phase E gives concrete scrap triggers plus a recovery procedure (re-run **how**, redesign, subtract, return to Phase B), and human pushback loops back to re-grounding. This matches the top anchor's 'clear sequence with explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery; checklists'.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clear workflow overview and correctly externalizes detail: both referenced files (`references/runner-prompt.md`, `references/rationale-template.md`) exist in the bundle with real, purpose-matched content, are one level deep, and are clearly signaled in context with what each is for. No inlined content that belongs in a separate file.

Specificity

Quotes several concrete actions — "Sketch types, signatures, and module structure before code" — plus a follow-through role ("stay in the loop while implementation fills in"), but that second clause is fuzzier and the description omits concrete outputs (rationale, module map), so it lands at 'several specific actions; minor gaps' rather than comprehensive.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: the 'what' ("Sketch types, signatures, and module structure before code, then stay in the loop while implementation fills in") and a concrete 'when' clause ("Use for /architect, 'architect this', 'design this', or non-trivial work where jumping to code would lock in the wrong shape") with literal trigger phrases, matching the top anchor exactly.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural invocation phrases are present — "/architect", "'architect this'", "'design this'" — matching the 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing' anchor; synonyms like 'plan this', 'scaffold', or 'structure the code' are absent, keeping it below comprehensive.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (pre-implementation type/signature sketching) is distinct, but "'design this'" and the broad "non-trivial work" trigger could overlap with other design- or planning-oriented skills, so it is 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' rather than minimal conflict.