Conciseness

The ~35-line body is dense with non-obvious operational knowledge only ("Check YOLO mode BEFORE drafting the plan", "Do NOT proceed to next phase while REVISION_NEEDED is pending", the exact shell test `[ "${AGENTTEAMS_YOLO:-}" = "1" ] || [ -f ~/yolo-mode ]`) with zero padding and no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Every token earns its place, matching anchor 5; anchor 4 requires over-explanation worth trimming, which is absent.

Actionability

The body gives a copy-paste-ready shell check for YOLO mode, a situation→document routing table, and concrete imperatives ("always invite admin", "Always sync to MinIO after changes", "use references/plan-format.md as the canonical format"). It is mostly executable guidance with minor gaps — operations like MinIO sync and task assignment are named but their commands live in the reference files, so it sits at anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's fully copy-paste-ready coverage, and well above anchor 3's pseudocode-level guidance.

Workflow Clarity

The body is a router with explicit ordering guards ("Check YOLO mode BEFORE drafting the plan", "Do NOT proceed to next phase while REVISION_NEEDED is pending", "'All tasks complete' step is mandatory") plus a situation→doc table that sends each operation to a step-by-step reference, all of which exist. This is clear sequencing with most checkpoints present, but the actual validation/feedback loops for the batch task lifecycle are delegated to the references rather than visible here, holding it at anchor 4 instead of anchor 5's explicit inline validate→fix→retry steps.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a concise overview with a clear Situation→Read table pointing to four one-level-deep reference files (create-project.md, task-lifecycle.md, plan-format.md, plan-changes.md), all of which exist in the bundle, along with an explicit instruction to load only the relevant one ("Do not load all of them"). This matches anchor 5 exactly — well-signaled, appropriately split, easy navigation; anchor 4 would require organization gaps that are not present.

Specificity

The description names the domain (multi-worker project management) and lists concrete scenarios like "when a Worker @mentions you with task completion in a project room" and "when a blocked task needs resolution", but it never states what actions the skill actually performs — the capabilities are only implied by the trigger situations. It fits anchor 3 (domain plus 1-2 concrete actions implied, not comprehensive) better than anchor 4 (several specific actions listed) and is clearly above anchor 2, whose example is a bare "Processes PDF files" with no concrete scenarios at all.

Completeness

The 'when' half is explicit and concrete (four "Use when..." triggers), but the 'what' half is entirely absent — the description never says what the skill does (create project rooms, maintain plan.md, assign and track tasks). This matches anchor 2's example "Use when working with documents" (only 'when' present without 'what') exactly; anchor 3 requires a clear 'what', and anchor 4 requires both.

Trigger Term Quality

Phrases like "start a multi-worker project", "plan changes", "task completion", and "blocked task" are natural things an admin or worker in this multi-agent environment would say, giving good keyword coverage. It falls short of anchor 5's comprehensive synonym/extension coverage (no "project room", "assign task", or artifact-name variations like plan.md), and is well above anchor 3's single generic keyword.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Triggers like "when a Worker @mentions you with task completion in a project room" are highly specific to this multi-agent orchestration niche, with minimal overlap risk against generic project or task skills. It clearly matches anchor 5 (clear niche, distinct triggers); anchor 4's example ("Works with PDF and Word document files") still admits overlap between related formats, which does not apply here.