Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient but carries noticeable padding: the motivational Core Concept prose ("LLM self-evaluation doesn't work... This is verified experimentally"), the "No competitor does all three" positioning line, a full Evidence A/B table, and disable instructions repeated across three sections (ECC_GATEGUARD=off appears in Quick Start, Graduated controls, and Turning the gate off). This exceeds the 'minor instances' that anchor 4 tolerates.

Actionability

Gate prompt templates, the env var table with defaults and exact accepted spellings, glob semantics, and the pip install commands are concrete and executable, but Option A's key step — 'Enable it via hooks.json' — provides no actual hooks.json or settings snippet showing how to enable the hook, leaving a minor gap.

Workflow Clarity

The DENY→FORCE→ALLOW sequence and the parallel-batch recovery loop ("present the facts, retry the denied edit, and re-read the file") are clearly sequenced, but the setup workflow has no validation checkpoint — nothing verifies the hook is active or that env var configuration took effect. This matches 'sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit' better than anchor 4.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist (no references/, scripts/, or assets/), yet the body claims the hook at `scripts/hooks/gateguard-fact-force.js` is 'included in this plugin' — a reference to a file that is not present. At ~200 lines with inlined glob-semantics detail and full env-var tables, the content could be better split; structure exists but organization and reference signaling are incomplete.

Specificity

The description lists multiple specific concrete actions — "denies the first Edit/Write/Bash (including MultiEdit) attempt until the agent presents concrete facts (importers, data schemas, verbatim user instruction), then allows retry" — covering the full gate mechanism comprehensively, matching the anchor-5 example's coverage level.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both what ("PreToolUse fact-forcing gate that denies the first Edit/Write/Bash attempt... then allows retry") and when ("Use when enabling or configuring the GateGuard hook, exempting paths via env vars, or handling first-touch denials") with concrete trigger phrases, in third-person voice.

Trigger Term Quality

"enabling or configuring the GateGuard hook, exempting paths via env vars, or handling first-touch denials" gives good natural keyword coverage, but common user phrasings like "turn off/disable GateGuard", "the gate is blocking my edit", or "bypass the gate" are missing, so it does not reach comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description carves out a clear niche — a named PreToolUse fact-forcing gate with distinct triggers (hook configuration, path exemption, first-touch denials) — creating minimal conflict risk with other skills.