Conciseness

The body is lean: it never explains concepts Claude already knows, and every section carries operational content ('Leader owns planning, delegation, acceptance...', 'reading `shared/tasks/{task-id}/spec.md`'). It sits at anchor 4 ('efficient; minor instances that could be trimmed') rather than 5 because the opening paragraph substantially duplicates the Role Boundaries bullet lists that follow it. It is well above anchor 3 since there is no over-explanation, only mild structural redundancy.

Actionability

For an instruction-only skill the guidance is concrete and specific: exact paths ('shared/tasks/{task-id}/spec.md', 'submitting `result.md`'), explicit prohibitions ('Do not let a Worker silently become project owner', 'must not instruct agents to call control-plane APIs'), and a concrete secrets rule ('refer only to the approved credential name or environment variable name, not its value'). This matches anchor 4 ('mostly executable guidance ... with minor gaps'); it falls short of 5 because there are no worked examples or explicit checks showing how to apply the rules when, say, a Worker starts acting as owner.

Workflow Clarity

The Worker bullet list encodes a clear lifecycle sequence (acknowledge → read spec.md → produce deliverables → submit result.md → report blockers/completion) and the role rules are unambiguous. This is a simple, single-purpose skill under 50 lines with no destructive or batch operations, so no validation cap applies. It sits at anchor 4 ('clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps') rather than 5: the Leader's check/accept/reject loop has no explicit recovery step describing what happens on rejection.

Progressive Disclosure

The skill is under 50 lines, needs no external references (none exist in the bundle), and is organized into clear, well-labeled sections ('Role Boundaries', 'Safety Boundary') with no inlined content that belongs in separate files. Per the judging guideline for simple under-50-line skills with no external reference needs, this matches the top anchor — well-organized sections with easy navigation and nothing buried.

Specificity

The description names the domain clearly ('TeamHarness team roles, responsibility boundaries') and one capability ('understand ... who owns project, task, runtime, and control-plane work'), quoting: 'Use to understand TeamHarness team roles, responsibility boundaries, and who owns project, task, runtime, and control-plane work.' It matches anchor 3 (domain plus 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive): the single verb 'understand' governs everything, so it does not list several specific actions like the anchor-4 example. It is above anchor 2 because the domain and scope areas are concrete, not generic.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear ('understand TeamHarness team roles, responsibility boundaries, and who owns ... work'), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance, only the implicit purpose in 'Use to understand'. Per the judging guideline, a missing 'Use when...' clause caps completeness at 3, which this matches exactly: clear 'what' with a weakly implied 'when'. It scores above anchor 2 because the 'what' is concrete and multi-part, not vague.

Trigger Term Quality

Relevant natural keywords are present — 'team roles', 'responsibility boundaries', 'who owns ... work' — which a user needing this skill could plausibly say. It sits at anchor 3 ('some relevant keywords but missing common variations or synonyms'): natural variations such as 'who does what', 'delegation', 'team structure', or 'ownership' phrasings are absent, so it does not reach anchor 4's 'good keyword coverage'. It is above anchor 2 because the terms are domain-specific rather than generic filler.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'TeamHarness' anchor plus 'control-plane' gives a clear niche with distinct triggers, minimizing conflicts with unrelated skills — 'Mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills.' It does not reach 5 because phrases like 'team roles' and 'responsibility boundaries' alone (without the TeamHarness qualifier) could overlap with generic team-management or org-design skills.