Conciseness

The body is dense, imperative rules with essentially no padding and no explanations of concepts Claude already knows. Not 5 because the rearming instruction is duplicated nearly verbatim: "run /computer-use on in the A0 Launcher chat when using Launcher Host access, or in A0 CLI otherwise, and approve the platform permission prompt" appears in both the Host vs Docker Boundary section and the Tool Contract section, and could be stated once. Not 3 because the duplication is minor relative to the whole and most tokens earn their place.

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: an exact JSON tool invocation, a complete typed argument enumeration (dispatch: background/auto/foreground; move normalized to [0,1]; click button/count options), exact user-facing commands (/computer-use on, chrome://inspect/#remote-debugging), and literal failure sentinels to match on (COMPUTER_USE_REARM_REQUIRED, focus_verified=true). Nothing is pseudocode or hand-waved.

Workflow Clarity

A numbered 12-step core loop with explicit validation checkpoints throughout: decide success only from the latest screenshot, fail closed on unverifiable keyboard targets, halt immediately on the rearm signal, one explicit capture before repeating a failed action, and a switch-strategy rule after two failed attempts. The destructive-operation cap (max 3 without validation) does not apply since verification is pervasive; this matches the anchor-5 profile of explicit validation steps with error-recovery feedback loops.

Progressive Disclosure

Well-sectioned body with one-level, clearly signaled references to backend-specific skills (load host-computer-use-linux / -macos / -windows when the backend advertises matching features), which correctly keeps backend detail out of the main file. Not 5 because no actual reference files exist in the bundle and some inline material (the full argument contract plus overlapping operating rules) is dense enough that it could be split into a reference file; not 3 because structure is good and the references that do exist are clearly signaled, not buried.

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions covering the domain comprehensively: "screenshots, screen inspection, menus, native app UI, OS-level clicking, scrolling, typing, or checking computer_use_remote status". This matches the anchor-5 pattern of multiple specific actions with comprehensive coverage, exceeding the minor-gaps profile of a 4.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what ("Beta desktop control through the connected A0 CLI host") and when ("Use for the user's host/local computer screenshots, screen inspection, menus, native app UI...") with concrete trigger phrases, mirroring the anchor-5 example structure. The 3 anchor (what without when) and 4 anchor (when only weakly explicit) clearly fit worse.

Trigger Term Quality

Good keyword coverage with natural phrases users would say: "host/local computer", "screen", "menus", "clicking", "scrolling", "typing". Falls short of 5 because common user variations like "my screen", "my display", "my desktop", or "show me my screen" are absent from the description itself (they exist only in the frontmatter triggers field, outside the evaluated text).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche with explicit disambiguation from adjacent skills: "Use instead of linux-desktop for host/local machine control" and "Do not use for ordinary browser navigation; host browser requests should use the browser tool". Conflict risk is minimal because the boundaries are stated, not implied.