Conciseness

The body is consistently dense and operational — every table names tools, commands, and budgets, and it never explains concepts Claude already knows. It is not 5 because the Overview's motivational prose, the Common Rationalizations objection-handling table, and the diff-scoping/cost-placement rule stated three times (Step 4 note 3, Step 5 rules, Step 6) are trimmable; it is not 3 because nearly every section carries non-obvious, project-specific judgment rather than padding.

Actionability

Fully executable throughout: a copy-paste CONSTRAINTS.md template, a tool matrix with install and run commands ('tsc --noEmit', 'gitleaks detect --redact --no-banner', 'semgrep scan --config p/default'), a concrete package.json scripts block, and a phase-to-command lifecycle table. Commands are real and complete, matching the anchor for copy-paste-ready guidance covering common cases.

Workflow Clarity

Seven clearly sequenced steps (detect → interview → write → install → wire → guard → ratchet) with explicit validation checkpoints: the Verification checklist, the Red Flags self-check, the trial-run gate, and Q2's block-vs-warn failure semantics that define what happens when a check fails mid-task. Feedback-loop guidance is present, fitting the top anchor; there are no sequencing gaps to justify 4.

Progressive Disclosure

The one bundle file, references/floor-guard.md, is real, well-signaled twice ('A reference implementation of these five checks ships with this skill in [references/floor-guard.md]'), and exactly one level deep — the right split, since the guard script is implementation detail. It is not 5 because the ~310-line SKILL.md carries nearly everything inline (Sane Defaults, Common Rationalizations, the full tool-install matrix), reading more as a complete manual than an overview pointing to detailed materials.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — 'Interviews the user on which dimensions matter, supplies sane default thresholds... records everything in CONSTRAINTS.md, and watches the diff for a weakened bar' — and enumerates the specific failure modes it detects ('new @ts-ignore or eslint-disable suppressions, skipped or deleted tests, assertions stripped out, unimplemented stubs, thresholds edited down'). This comprehensively matches the anchor-5 example's level of concrete, multi-action coverage; it is not score 4 because the action list goes beyond 'several' with no coverage gaps.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what (establishes a written quality contract, interviews, records, and watches diffs for weakening) and when, with six concrete 'Use when' trigger clauses ('Use when no quality bar is written down, when the user says "set up constraints"...'). This matches the anchor-5 pattern of a clear what plus explicit, concrete trigger phrases; not 4 because the when-clause is fully explicit rather than improvable.

Trigger Term Quality

It includes natural phrases users would actually say — '"set up constraints"', '"define our standards"', 'accessibility, web performance, coverage', 'an agent keeps silencing checks or skipping tests to get to green' — plus synonyms (quality bar, constraints, standards, thresholds). This clearly matches the comprehensive-synonyms anchor; not 4, since the missing terms are trivial and both quoted user phrasings and the CONSTRAINTS.md filename are present.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche — writing and enforcing a persistent quality-bar contract — is distinct, with triggers like 'set up constraints' and 'define our standards' unlikely to fire for the wrong skill. However, 'watches the diff for a weakened bar' and 'agent keeps silencing checks or skipping tests' sit adjacent to code-review skill territory, giving minor overlap risk with closely related skills, which fits anchor 4 rather than the minimal-conflict anchor 5.