Conciseness

The body is dense with non-obvious protocol facts (submission_id as an opaque fence, digest inputs, retry semantics, legacy-task rules) and assumes competence rather than explaining basics, but there is minor repetition that could be trimmed — e.g., 'Do not include shared/projects/... paths in deliverables' and the result.md-before-submit guidance each appear in multiple sections. This fits the 4 anchor ('Efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed') better than 3, since most tokens carry information Claude could not infer.

Actionability

The ack_task and submit_task JSON payloads are copy-paste ready, file paths are exact, and the status enum and completion-line formats are given verbatim. Minor gaps remain: the 'report_progress' and 'request_attention' actions describe payloads ("a short note, ≤ 200 chars", "payload: kind, question") without a concrete example, matching the 4 anchor ('Mostly executable guidance... minor gaps') rather than the 5 anchor's fully covered common cases.

Workflow Clarity

Sections run in execution order (Acknowledge → Execute → Submit → Completion) with explicit error-recovery loops: ack failure ('If ack_task fails... stop and report the blocker'), blockers ('If blocked, submit a BLOCKED result instead of silently waiting'), interrupted sync ('retry with exactly the same status, summary, and ordered deliverables'), and artifact verification ('Check publishedArtifacts in the tool result for published, skipped, or failed artifact status'). These feedback loops match the 5 anchor's 'explicit validation steps; feedback loops for error recovery'.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, and the ~200-line body is well organized under clear section headers (Task Directory, Acknowledge, Execute, Submit, Completion Message) with no nested references — matching the 4 anchor ('Good structure; most content is appropriately placed'). It falls short of 5 because the skill exceeds 50 lines and the deep edge-case material (digest semantics, retry rules, legacy-task adoption) could plausibly live in a one-level-deep reference file.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions ("receive TASK_ASSIGNED, acknowledge the task, work inside shared/tasks/{task-id}/, submit with taskflow submit_task, publish deliverables through submit_task, and report TASK_COMPLETED or blockers"), which matches the 5 anchor's comprehensive concrete actions. However, it uses second person ("Use when you act as Worker"), which the guidelines penalize by reducing specificity by 1, yielding 4.

Completeness

It explicitly answers "when" ("Use when you act as Worker: receive TASK_ASSIGNED") with a concrete trigger phrase, and "what" with specific actions (acknowledge, work in the task directory, submit, publish deliverables, report completion/blockers). This matches the 5 anchor: both what and when are explicit with concrete trigger phrases.

Trigger Term Quality

Strong domain keywords are present: "TASK_ASSIGNED", "Worker", "taskflow submit_task", "TASK_COMPLETED", "Task room", "blockers" — exactly the terms a user in this harness would say. A few natural terms are missing (e.g., "report_progress", "BLOCKED" as a status, generic phrasings like "execute my assigned task"), matching the 4 anchor ("Good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing") rather than the 5 anchor's comprehensive synonym coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The Worker-role framing plus unique tokens ("TASK_ASSIGNED", "submit_task", "Task room") carve out a clear niche distinct from Leader/Controller or project-level skills; trigger events are unambiguous, matching the 5 anchor ("Clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk").