Conciseness

The 'The Problem' section ('Subagents are spawned with limited context. They don't know: Which files contain relevant code...') and the 'Standard approaches fail' bullets restate consequences an agent-literate reader can infer, and the 14-line ASCII box diagram carries little information beyond what 'DISPATCH -> EVALUATE -> REFINE -> LOOP, max 3 cycles' already says. This is 'mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation' — more than the minor trimmable instances of anchor 4, well short of the heavily-padded anchor 2.

Actionability

Every code block depends on undefined helpers (retrieveFiles, scoreRelevance, extractPatterns, extractKeywords, mergeContext, hasCriticalGaps, identifyGaps), so nothing is executable — the exact anchor-3 shape of 'pseudocode instead of executable code; missing key details'. It is above anchor 2 because the loop logic, thresholds, and termination criteria are concrete and complete, but below anchor 4 since no code or command runs as written.

Workflow Clarity

The four phases are clearly sequenced with an explicit sufficiency checkpoint ('highRelevance.length >= 3 && !hasCriticalGaps') and a genuine evaluate-refine-retry feedback loop, plus two worked cycle-by-cycle examples. Not anchor 5: there is a minor validation inconsistency — the prose scoring criteria call 0.8-1.0 'High' while the loop exits on relevance >= 0.7, leaving the stop rule ambiguous at the boundary.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist and the ~210-line body is well-sectioned with clear headers, and nothing is buried; most content is appropriately inline for a pattern skill. Not anchor 5: at this length the two multi-cycle worked examples are candidates for a separate examples file, and the skill exceeds the under-50-lines exception for scoring structure alone.

Specificity

The description names the domain ('subagent context problem') and one concrete action ('progressively refining context retrieval'), e.g. 'Pattern for progressively refining context retrieval to solve the subagent context problem'. It stops short of listing several specific actions, so it fits anchor 3 rather than 4, but is more than a bare domain label (anchor 2).

Completeness

It explicitly answers both: what ('Pattern for progressively refining context retrieval to solve the subagent context problem') and when ('Use when a subagent lacks the context it needs and retrieval must be refined across passes'). The 'when' is explicit but abstract rather than concrete user phrases, so anchor 4 instead of 5; it is far above anchor 3 since the 'when' is not merely implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant keywords are present ('subagent', 'context', 'retrieval', 'refined across passes') but common variations a user would naturally say are missing: 'multi-agent', 'RAG', 'search', 'explore', 'token budget'. This matches 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms', not the good-coverage anchor 4.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

'Subagent context problem' and 'iterative retrieval' carve a fairly distinct niche with clear triggers, with only minor overlap risk against generic RAG/search-optimization skills. This is 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk' rather than the minimal-conflict anchor 5.