Conciseness

The body is lean with zero padding: no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and even the rationale lines ('Textual instructions are easy to miss...') and the corollary ('The instruction IS the symptom') each earn their tokens, matching the top anchor.

Actionability

Concrete decision procedure with an explicit branch ('If yes, encode it. Delete the instruction / If no... make the instruction more prominent and add an example of the failure mode'), an ordered mechanism hierarchy ('an unrepresentable state that cannot compile, then a lint or banned API that fails CI, then a canonical helper, then a runtime check'), and a routing table ('One-off -> brain note. Recurring fix -> skill or lint rule. Systemic issue -> principle'). Per the rubric's scoring note, the absence of code is not penalized for an instruction-only skill, but a worked example (e.g., an actual lint config or script snippet) is what separates it from fully copy-paste-ready guidance at the 5 anchor.

Workflow Clarity

The detect -> ask -> encode-or-branch sequence is unambiguous, the feedback loop (capture -> route -> close the loop) is explicit, and no destructive or batch operations exist that would require validation checkpoints, so the simple-skill exception applies at the top anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no bundle files and no content that warrants external references; the body is organized into well-labeled sections (Why, Pattern, Corollary, Feedback loop, Anti-patterns), which per the rubric's simple-skill note earns the top score on well-organized sections alone.

Specificity

The description names concrete mechanisms ("a lint, metadata flag, runtime check, or script") but the 'what' is a single action with variants rather than several distinct actions, and the second-person phrasing ("you catch yourself") incurs the rubric's voice penalty, dropping it from the 4 anchor to 3.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit and concrete: the 'when' is an explicit "Apply when..." clause with specific trigger phrases, and the 'what' states exactly what to do ("Encode the rule as a lint, metadata flag, runtime check, or script instead of more text"), matching the top anchor rather than the merely-adequate 4 anchor.

Trigger Term Quality

"writing the same instruction a second time" and "recurring correction" are natural trigger phrases with good coverage, though common variations like 'repeated feedback' or 'keeps correcting me' are missing, so it falls at the 4 anchor rather than 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

It occupies a clear niche (encoding recurring corrections as structural mechanisms) with distinct triggers, with only minor overlap risk against general feedback-recording or memory-keeping skills.