Conciseness

The body is dense, imperative, and free of concept explanations Claude already knows, but there is minor trimmable repetition: the "estimates are not live context" disclaimer appears in both the Audit Output section ("Do not claim that an estimate is provider-reported...") and the closing diagnostic paragraphs, and the pointer back to native commands is given twice (lines 81 and 132-133). This matches anchor 4 (efficient, minor over-explanation) rather than anchor 3, since nothing is padded concept explanation.

Actionability

Every path is fully executable: the default path supplies exact per-harness commands (/status, /context, /context all) in a routing table with doc links, the audit path gives bounded read-only rules with a 50-entry cap and an enumerated report spec, and the diagnostic supplies complete, copy-paste-ready Python (with error handling for OSError and malformed records) plus a justified path placeholder. This matches anchor 5's fully-executable, common-cases-covered standard.

Workflow Clarity

The three paths (default live-context, explicit audit, explicitly selected diagnostic) are clearly separated with unambiguous routing criteria, and a checkpoint exists ("If the audit scope is ambiguous, ask for the harness and installation root before reading anything"). It falls short of anchor 5 because the audit path lists scope constraints and an output spec but not an ordered step sequence, and there is no validate-and-retry feedback loop; the operations are read-only so the destructive/batch cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, and the body is organized into four clearly headed, self-contained sections with external doc links clearly signaled and no nested references. This is good structure with a minor gap — the ~40-line inline diagnostic (code plus caveats) is the one block arguably large enough to live in a scripts/ or reference file — so anchor 4 fits better than anchor 5.

Specificity

The description lists two concrete, well-constrained actions — "Routes live context checks to the native Codex or Claude Code meter without scanning files" and "performs a bounded static component audit only when explicitly requested" — which is noticeably more specific than the two-action anchor 3 example, though it stops short of the several-action comprehensive coverage of anchor 5 (e.g., it omits the selected-record diagnostic and the specific commands). Third person voice is used throughout, so no voice penalty applies.

Completeness

Both what ("Routes live context checks to the native... meter" plus the bounded audit) and when ("Use for context-budget requests about remaining capacity or installed context overhead") are explicitly present, satisfying the 'Use when' requirement. It falls short of anchor 5 because the trigger phrases are narrower and less natural than the concrete, varied triggers in the anchor 5 example.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords include "context", "remaining capacity", and "installed context overhead", but the central trigger phrase "context-budget requests" is a coined term users would not naturally say, and common variations like "context window", "token usage", "headroom", or "how much context is left" are missing. This sits between anchor 3 (missing common variations) and anchor 4, but the absence of the most natural user phrasings keeps it at 3.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The skill occupies a clear niche — checking context capacity via native Codex/Claude Code meters with an opt-in static audit — with triggers ("remaining capacity", "installed context overhead") unlikely to collide with other skills. Anchor 5 (clear niche, distinct triggers, minimal conflict risk) is the best fit.