Conciseness

The body is ~10 lines with zero padding, no explanation of concepts Claude already knows, and no filler — every line states purpose, aliasing, or a workflow stage. It matches the 'lean and efficient; assumes Claude's competence' anchor; there is nothing to trim and no neighboring anchor competes.

Actionability

The body is an outline that describes stages ("Mode classification (single-agent-creator, team-builder, ...)", "Routing card and soul authoring") but gives no concrete instructions, commands, file paths, or examples for executing any of them — undefined terms like "routing card", "soul", and "interview/research gate" leave the executor guessing. This matches 'minimal concrete guidance; high-level hints but missing the specific steps to execute'; it is above anchor 1 because the enumerated modes and runtimes (Codex, Claude, Gemini, Antigravity) are real, specific hints rather than pure abstraction.

Workflow Clarity

A clear 5-step numbered sequence is present and even names a verification stage ("Package verification"), but no step carries operational detail, no validation checkpoint is described (what does verification check, what happens on failure), and there is no feedback loop. This matches 'steps listed but validation gaps; sequence present but checkpoints missing or implicit'; anchor 4 would require most checkpoints to be concrete, not just named.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with clean, well-organized sections and no inlined content that belongs in separate files; no references/scripts/assets bundle exists, so nothing is misfiled or deeply nested. It falls short of anchor 5 because for a skill this complex (four modes, four runtimes) the details that must live somewhere are simply absent — there are no well-signaled pointers to where mode-specific or runtime-specific guidance lives, which is a minor organization gap consistent with anchor 4.

Specificity

The description names the domain ("single agent or multi-agent team") and lists actions ("design, build, and package"), but those verbs are generic and the description omits concrete capabilities like mode classification, runtime adapter generation, or package verification that the body reveals. It matches the 'names domain and 1-2 concrete actions, but not comprehensive' anchor; it is below anchor 4 because the actions are not specific enough to be called 'several specific actions'.

Completeness

Both parts are present: an explicit "Use when the user types..." trigger clause and a what-clause ("to design, build, and package a single agent or multi-agent team"). It falls short of anchor 5 because the 'what' is a thin high-level summary without concrete trigger phrases describing capability scope, matching 'both what and when; when could be more explicit or specific' — though here the when is strong, the what is the weaker half. It is clearly above anchor 3, where 'when' would be missing or only weakly implied.

Trigger Term Quality

Triggers are the exact slash commands "/agentlas-build, /agentlas build, or /hep-build", which are precise but the only keywords present. Common natural-language variations a user might say ("create an agent", "build an agent team", "package an agent") are missing, matching the 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms' anchor. It is not a 4 because keyword coverage beyond the literal commands is absent, and not a 2 because the commands plus domain nouns ("agent", "team", "build") are relevant, not generic.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The unique "agentlas" namespace plus exact slash-command triggers ("/agentlas-build, /agentlas build, or /hep-build") create a clear niche with minimal conflict risk against any generic skill. It matches the anchor-5 example's distinct, command-level triggers; nothing in it would fire for a different skill.