Conciseness

The body is lean, assumes competence (no explanation of what git or a project plan is), and every section carries information. However, the Gotchas section repeats information that appears again later — 'Project plan is auto-synced' restates the Project Context intro, and the @mention and git-author points each appear twice — so minor trimming is possible, matching anchor 4 rather than anchor 5's 'every token earns its place'.

Actionability

The core operations are copy-paste ready: 'cat /home/openhuman/.openhuman/shared/projects/{project-id}/plan.md' and the two 'git config' commands. Not anchor 5 because workflow steps 1 and 3 are abstract — 'mark it as started in your memory' and 'Report completion via @mention to your coordinator' give no concrete example of how to do either; not anchor 3 because the provided commands are fully executable, not pseudocode or high-level hints.

Workflow Clarity

The three-step workflow (mark started → execute → report via @mention) is clearly sequenced, and this is not a destructive or batch operation so no validation cap applies. Missing anchor 5 because there are no checkpoints or error paths — nothing about verifying dependencies before starting (despite the plan listing them) or what to do if the task fails; beyond anchor 3 because each step is discrete and the completion-reporting step is explicit about its purpose ('so the project can advance').

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines with no need for external references, and per the rubric's simple-skill guideline it qualifies for 5 with well-organized sections alone. The four sections (Gotchas, Project Context, Workflow, Git Config) each hold a distinct concern, and the plan-reading detail is kept inline at the right altitude with no reference sprawl.

Specificity

The phrase 'Covers project plan reading, task coordination with other Workers, and git author config' lists three distinct capability areas, two of which are concrete (reading the project plan, git author config), while 'task coordination' remains generic. It sits between anchor 3 ('1-2 concrete actions') and anchor 5 ('comprehensive coverage') — several actions are named but the coordination action lacks any concrete detail.

Completeness

Both questions are answered explicitly: 'Covers project plan reading, task coordination with other Workers, and git author config' (what) and 'Use when you are invited to a Project Room or assigned a task within a multi-worker project' (when, with two concrete trigger phrases). Matches the anchor-5 pattern of the good example ('Extract text... Use when working with PDF files or when the user mentions...') rather than anchor 4, whose 'when' clause is more generic.

Trigger Term Quality

'Use when you are invited to a Project Room or assigned a task within a multi-worker project' supplies natural trigger phrases a user in this environment would actually say. Falls short of anchor 5 because no synonyms or variations are covered (e.g., 'project plan', 'coordinator', 'multi-agent project'), but goes beyond anchor 3's 'some relevant keywords' by capturing two distinct, natural invocation scenarios.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The triggers 'Project Room', 'multi-worker project', and 'assigned a task' within this specific coordination context define a clear niche with minimal overlap risk against generic git or task-management skills. Not anchor 4, because the gating trigger phrases are distinctive enough that wrong-skill firing is unlikely.