Conciseness

The body is lean and assumes Claude's competence — no explanations of known concepts, just tool-specific facts. One minor trimmable redundancy: the 'Key Concept: Prompt Independence' section ('Measures whether a skill/rule is followed even when the prompt doesn't explicitly support it') restates what the intro's 'scenarios with decreasing prompt strictness (supportive → neutral → competing)' already conveys. Efficient with minor over-explanation fits level 4 rather than level 5's 'every token earns its place'.

Actionability

The Usage section provides three copy-paste-ready commands covering the common cases — full run ('uv run python -m scripts.run ~/.claude/rules/common/testing.md'), dry run ('--dry-run'), and custom models ('--gen-model haiku --model sonnet') — all verified to exist in scripts/run.py. This matches the level-5 anchor (fully executable, specific examples covering common cases), not level 4 which implies missing details.

Workflow Clarity

The agent workflow (activation triggers in 'When to Activate' → unambiguous run command in 'Usage') is a clear, single-action sequence, and the intro's 6-step pipeline explains what the tool does. However, a full run is a batch, cost-incurring operation (multiple agent executions at 3 strictness levels) and the body never suggests validating with the zero-cost '--dry-run' first — a minor validation gap that fits level 4 rather than level 5's explicit checkpoints.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is ~50 lines with well-organized sections (Supported Targets, When to Activate, Usage, Report Contents, Advanced) and needs no external references; the one path it does reference (the scripts.run module) resolves to a real bundle file (scripts/run.py). Per the simple-skill guideline (under 50 lines, no need for external references), this earns level 5 with well-organized sections alone.

Specificity

The description lists five concrete actions — 'auto-generates scenarios at 3 prompt strictness levels, runs agents, classifies behavioral sequences, and reports compliance rates with full tool call timelines' — comprehensively covering the tool's pipeline. This matches the level-5 anchor (multiple specific concrete actions, comprehensive coverage) rather than level 4, which implies minor gaps in coverage.

Completeness

Both questions are explicitly answered: the 'what' is the enumerated pipeline (generate scenarios, run agents, classify, report compliance rates) and the 'when' is a concrete trigger clause ('Use when checking whether agents actually follow the skills, rules, and definitions they were given'). This clearly matches the level-5 anchor with concrete trigger phrases, not level 4 where the 'when' would be less specific.

Trigger Term Quality

The trigger clause 'Use when checking whether agents actually follow the skills, rules, and definitions they were given' contains natural phrases users would say ('follow', 'skills', 'rules', 'agents'), but misses common synonyms such as 'adherence', 'verify compliance', or 'check rule compliance'. Good coverage with a few natural terms missing fits level 4; it is not level 5 (no synonym-level comprehensiveness) nor level 3 (the terms are natural user phrasing, not just domain jargon).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The compliance-measurement niche ('actually followed', 'compliance rates') is distinct from most skills, but the leading verb 'Visualize whether...' creates minor overlap risk with visualization/dashboard skills that a user might invoke for 'visualize compliance data'. Mostly distinct with minor overlap risk fits level 4; it does not reach level 5's 'minimal conflict risk' because of that leading visualization framing.