Conciseness

The body is dominated by terse bash blocks ("npm run build 2>&1 | tail -20", "npx tsc --noEmit | head -30") with no explanations of concepts Claude already knows, matching anchor 4 ('Efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed'). It is not a 5 because line 9 duplicates the frontmatter description verbatim and the "Establecer un checkpoint mental" block in Modo Continuo is soft padding; not a 3 because there are no whole padded sections.

Actionability

Concrete copy-paste commands cover all six phases (build, tsc/pyright, lint, coverage tests, secret greps, git diff) plus a fill-in report template, matching anchor 4 ('Mostly executable guidance; concrete code or commands with minor gaps'). It falls short of anchor 5 because "Ejecutar: /verify" references an undefined command and the 80% coverage target is a comment rather than an executable check.

Workflow Clarity

Six numbered phases run in a clear sequence with gating checkpoints ("Si el build falla, DETENER y corregir antes de continuar", "Corregir los críticos antes de continuar") and a final LISTO/NO LISTO gate, matching anchor 4 ('Clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps'). It misses anchor 5 because the fix-and-re-run feedback loop after lint, test, or security failures is only implicit, and gating stops after the early phases.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is self-contained with no bundle files and clear, well-organized sections (Fases, Formato de Salida, Modo Continuo, Integración con Hooks), matching anchor 4 ('Good structure; most content is appropriately placed'). The 50-line simple-skill exception does not apply (~126 lines), and sections like Modo Continuo / Integración con Hooks could arguably be trimmed or split, keeping it below anchor 5.

Specificity

"Sistema de verificación completo para sesiones de Claude Code" names the verification domain but lists no concrete actions (build, types, lint, tests, security, diff are all absent), matching the anchor 'Names the domain but actions are minimal or generic'. It is not a 1 because it is not pure abstract language with no domain, and not a 3 because no concrete capability is stated.

Completeness

The 'what' is vague ("Sistema de verificación completo") and the 'when' is entirely absent — there is no 'Use when...' or equivalent trigger clause, exactly matching anchor 2 ('Has a vague what and no when'). It cannot reach 3 because no explicit trigger guidance exists, per the guideline capping completeness at 3 for missing trigger clauses, and the vague 'what' pushes it below that cap.

Trigger Term Quality

The only keywords are the generic "verificación", "sesiones", and "Claude Code"; the natural phrases a user would say ("run tests", "check the build", "before creating a PR", "coverage") are all missing, matching anchor 2 ('One or two generic keywords; missing the natural phrases users say'). It avoids a 1 only because these terms are not technical jargon.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Verificación... para sesiones de Claude Code" is very broad and would overlap with code-review, testing, linting, and security skills, matching anchor 2 ('Very broad; high overlap risk with many similar skills'). It is above anchor 1 because it does name a specific context, but below anchor 3 because nothing distinguishes it from any other quality-gate skill.