Conciseness

The 26-line body is lean and assumes Claude's competence, adding only non-obvious guidance (e.g., 'Agents report what they intended, not always what happened' and 'suspect the observation method before suspecting the system'). Nothing explains concepts Claude already knows, matching the 'every token earns its place' anchor.

Actionability

Concrete, specific directives throughout — 'Check process liveness directly', 'inspect the actual output artifact (git diff, file contents, runtime behavior)', numbered build/run/check-chain/end-to-end steps — and the code-vs-instruction note means absence of code is not penalized. It sits at 4 rather than 5 because there is no worked example or command (e.g., a sample re-runnable comparison script) covering the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

The 'Code and features' numbered sequence (build → run the actual path → check the full chain → test end-to-end) plus checklist bullets and an error-recovery heuristic ('When verification fails, suspect the observation method') give a clear sequence with most checkpoints present. It is not a destructive/batch skill, so no cap applies; it misses 5 only because the sequence is fully explicit just for code tasks while general tasks get the single 'Pattern' question.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no need for external references, and per the simple-skill guideline well-organized sections suffice: intro/Why/Pattern, a checklist, a delegation section, and a clearly signaled cross-skill pointer ('the **show-me-your-work** skill'). Structure is flat but navigable, matching the 5 anchor for small self-contained skills.

Specificity

The description lists several concrete actions — 'run the feature, read the actual value, inspect the diff' — plus explicit anti-examples ('not a proxy, self-report, or "it compiles"'). Coverage is good but not comprehensive (e.g., process liveness or end-to-end paths named in the body are absent), matching the 'several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor rather than the 5 anchor's full coverage.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: when ('Apply after completing a task, before declaring done') and what ('Verify against the real artifact... not a proxy, self-report, or "it compiles"') with concrete trigger phrases. This matches the 5 anchor; the 4 anchor applies when the 'when' is generic like 'Use when working with PDF files', whereas here the trigger timing is explicit and specific.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases a user would say are present ('verify', 'run the feature', 'inspect the diff', 'self-report', "'it compiles'"), giving good keyword coverage. It stays at 4 rather than 5 because common variations like 'prove', 'test', or 'check before done' are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (direct verification vs. proxies/self-reports) is distinct with memorable triggers, but 'Apply after completing a task' is broadly applicable and could overlap with completion-adjacent skills (review/run/verify skills). Mostly distinct with minor overlap risk fits the 4 anchor better than 5's 'minimal conflict risk'.