Conciseness

The body is lean and every line carries project-specific facts Claude would not already know (the auto-synced plan path, the `[ ]`/`[~]`/`[x]` status conventions, the @mention reporting requirement). No padding or explanations of known concepts — matches the top anchor.

Actionability

Concrete, runnable commands are given (`cat ~/shared/projects/{project-id}/plan.md`, both `git config` lines), but the placeholders `{project-id}` and `<your-worker-name>` require substitution and "Execute the task following normal task execution flow" is vague direction rather than instruction. Solidly above the midpoint but not fully copy-paste ready — 4, not 3 (real executable commands dominate) and not 5 (one vague step remains).

Workflow Clarity

The Workflow section gives a clear three-step sequence (mark started → execute → report) and the Gotchas section surfaces critical checkpoints (read plan directly, set git author before commits, @mention to advance). It is 4 rather than 5 because no explicit verification of any step is described, and 4 rather than 3 since the operations are non-destructive so the validation cap does not apply and most checkpoints are present.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, has no bundle files, and needs no external references; the four sections (Gotchas, Project Context, Workflow, Git Config) are well organized and easy to navigate. Per the rubric's simple-skill guideline this earns a 5.

Specificity

It names the domain and lists three concrete capabilities ("project plan reading, task coordination with other Workers, and git author config"), which matches the anchor-4 pattern of several specific actions with minor gaps; however, the second-person phrasing "Use when you are invited" triggers the rubric's 1-point voice penalty, dropping it to 3. It is not a 2 because the domain is named and multiple real actions are listed rather than generic ones.

Completeness

It explicitly answers both questions: the "what" is "Covers project plan reading, task coordination with other Workers, and git author config" and the "when" gives two concrete trigger phrases ("Use when you are invited to a Project Room or assigned a task within a multi-worker project"), matching the top anchor exactly.

Trigger Term Quality

"invited to a Project Room", "assigned a task", and "multi-worker project" are the natural phrases for this domain's trigger events, giving good keyword coverage. It falls short of 5 because no synonyms or variations (e.g. team project, collaboration) are included.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"Project Room" and "multi-worker project" carve out a clear niche with distinct, environment-specific triggers; there is minimal risk of this firing for an unrelated skill. Not a 4 because no overlap with closely related skills is apparent.