Conciseness

The body is signal-dense — every column of the model table carries practitioner judgment ("How it lies," "Best for") rather than textbook restatement, and the blind-spot and triangulation sections are compact and opinionated. Not a 5 because there is minor trimmable material: rhetorical framing ("the hardest question in marketing"), the §1 expectation-setting bullets, and definitional recap of well-known models (first-touch/last-touch credit rules, MTA/MMM/incrementality definitions); not a 3 because there is no padded filler of the anchor-3 kind and the bulk earns its place.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: exact identifiers and formats (`identify()`, `$initial_utm_*`, `?metadata[ph_distinct_id]=<id>`), specific rejection rules ("Reject ids that look like PII (contain `@`)"), numbered triangulation steps ("Never sum across platforms... De-dupe against the source-of-truth total"), and a copy-paste output template. Not a 5 because there is no executable code in the body — code patterns are deferred to references/first-party-tracking.md; not a 3 because the guidance is specific and directive, well beyond pseudocode or high-level hints.

Workflow Clarity

Clear sequencing: two-pillar routing up front ("Most requests start with (A)"), numbered processes for the identity graph and webhook stitching, a "Guardrails (do not skip)" checklist, audit-first validation ("Audit first — many SaaS apps already identify at signup"), and a recovery pattern ("Expect near-zero numbers until the stitch is verified in prod — don't panic"). Not a 5 because Pillar A's triangulation workflow has no explicit validation/checkpoint step and there is no general validate→fix→retry loop; not a 3 because sequences and most checkpoints are present and clearly ordered.

Progressive Disclosure

Well-signaled, one-level-deep references throughout ("For the model math... see references/attribution-models.md"; "the full runbook with code patterns is in references/first-party-tracking.md"; "full playbooks in references/by-business-type.md") plus a tools table mapping to per-tool guides. Not a 5 because none of the referenced files (attribution-models.md, measurement-paradigms.md, first-party-tracking.md, by-business-type.md) exist in this bundle, so the deferred detail is unreachable and the split cannot be verified; not a 3 because the signaling and organization within SKILL.md itself are clear and consistent, not buried.

Specificity

Names three concrete actions — "figure out which marketing actually drives conversions and revenue," "choose or interpret an attribution model," and "reconcile conflicting numbers across tools" — which matches the 'several specific actions' anchor. Not a 5 because the description omits the first-party instrumentation/build capability (a whole pillar of the skill) and the sentence cuts off mid-word ("whic..."), leaving coverage incomplete; not a 3 because it goes beyond 1-2 actions and covers the interpretation pillar concretely.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: the "what" (choose or interpret an attribution model, reconcile conflicting numbers) and the "when" ("When the user wants to figure out..." and "Also use when the user mentions...") with concrete trigger phrases. Not a 5 because the when-clause's trigger enumeration is literally cut off mid-list, leaving it incomplete rather than clearly and fully answering 'when'; not a 3 because the when guidance is explicit, not merely implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases users would actually say: "attribution," "attribution model," "first-touch vs last-touch," "multi-touch" — good keyword coverage per the anchor-4 example. Not a 5 because the trigger list is truncated mid-word ("whic..."), dropping likely terms (e.g., "last-touch" alone, "which channel gets credit," "marketing mix modeling"); not a 3 because present terms are natural and well-chosen rather than merely 'some relevant keywords.'

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Attribution model," "first-touch vs last-touch," and "multi-touch" are niche-distinct triggers that clearly point here rather than to neighboring analytics/ads skills. Not a 5 because "reconcile conflicting numbers across tools" and conversion-adjacent phrasing carry minor overlap risk with the closely related analytics and ads skills; not a 3 because the core triggers are far more specific than generic domain language.