Conciseness

The body is lean with no padding or explanations of concepts Claude already knows; the 'What It Detects' section packs 21 categories into one dense informational sentence. It fits anchor 4 ('efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed') rather than 5 because the run-on category list could be tightened or tabularized.

Actionability

The Example section gives a concrete worked input and enumerates the four output sections ('Issues found', 'Rewritten version', 'What changed', 'Second-pass audit'), which is more than high-level hints — but the core operational data, the '43-entry replacement table' and per-category definitions, appears nowhere: not inline and not in any bundle file (no references/, scripts/, or assets/ exist). This matches anchor 3 ('some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details'), ruling out 4 and keeping it above 2.

Workflow Clarity

The four-section output format implies a clear audit→rewrite→summarize→re-audit sequence, and 'Second-pass audit — re-reads the rewrite to catch any surviving tells' is an explicit validation checkpoint. It falls short of anchor 5 because there is no error-recovery loop (e.g., 'if tells survive the rewrite, fix and re-run the audit'); this is prose editing, not a destructive or batch operation, so no cap applies.

Progressive Disclosure

Sections are well-organized and the file is under 50 lines, but the body repeatedly names a '43-entry replacement table' and 21 category definitions that clearly belong in a separate reference file, and no references/ directory exists — the claimed detail content is simply absent. The under-50-lines exception for scoring 5 requires no need for external references, which does not hold here, so it sits at anchor 3 ('some structure but could be better organized').

Specificity

The description offers exactly two concrete actions ('Audit and rewrite content to remove 21 categories of AI writing patterns') plus a quantified table ('43-entry replacement table'), naming the domain clearly. It matches anchor 3 ('names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive') — anchor 4 requires several specific actions, and coverage of what the audit produces is absent.

Completeness

It clearly answers 'what' ('Audit and rewrite content to remove 21 categories of AI writing patterns with a 43-entry replacement table') but has no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, which the guidelines cap at 3. The 'when' is only weakly implied by the domain itself.

Trigger Term Quality

'AI writing patterns', 'audit', and 'rewrite' are phrases a user would naturally say when they need this skill, but common variations users actually use — 'AI-isms', 'make this sound less like AI', 'humanize this text', 'machine-generated' — are missing. This matches anchor 3 ('some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms') rather than 4.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche — detecting and removing AI writing patterns via a replacement table — is a clear specialty distinct from generic editing or proofreading skills, and 'AI writing patterns' is an unlikely trigger for unrelated skills. Minor overlap risk remains with general 'improve my writing' requests, matching anchor 4 ('mostly distinct; minor overlap risk') rather than 5.