Conciseness

The body is protocol-specific rather than explaining known concepts, but contains several padded or duplicated sections: a Keywords section duplicating the description, a Quick Reference table restating the loop-prevention rules, a "When to Invoke vs When to Assume" section overlapping the reference file's stated scope, and two large sections (Internal Quality Loop, User Communication Standard) that exceed a communication protocol's remit. Matches anchor 3 (mostly efficient but includes unnecessary material that could be tightened); not 2 because nothing explains concepts Claude already knows.

Actionability

Fully executable instruction-only guidance: copy-paste templates for INVOKE/RESPONSE/CHAIN/BLOCKED/BROADCAST formats, a worked CFO response example with real numbers, explicit valid-role token lists, and ✅/❌ examples for every hard rule. Per the scoring notes, absence of code in an instruction-only skill is not penalized when the guidance is this actionable; matches anchor 5.

Workflow Clarity

The verification loop is sequenced as Steps 1–4 with explicit validation checkpoints (self-verify checklist, peer-verification routing table, critic pre-screen triggers) and feedback loops for error recovery (course correction after founder feedback, 30/60/90 post-decision review). Loop prevention includes explicit blocked-path fallback behavior. Matches anchor 5 (clear sequence, explicit validation, feedback loops, checklists).

Progressive Disclosure

The single reference file (references/invocation-patterns.md) exists, is one level deep, and is clearly signaled at the end — but the ~450-line body inlines large sections that belong in separate reference files (User Communication Standard, Internal Quality Loop), and its "When to Invoke vs When to Assume" section duplicates the reference file's stated purpose. Matches anchor 3 (content that should be separate is inline); not 4 because more than minor organization gaps exist given the body's size versus only one reference file.

Specificity

"Defines invocation syntax, loop prevention, isolation rules, and response formats" lists multiple specific concrete capabilities with comprehensive coverage of the skill's scope. Anti-drift check: anchor 4 requires 'minor gaps in coverage' — no such gaps are evident, so 5 stands.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: the "what" ("Inter-agent communication protocol... Defines invocation syntax, loop prevention, isolation rules, and response formats") and the "when" ("Use when C-suite agents need to query each other, coordinate cross-functional analysis, or run board meetings with multiple agent roles"). Matches anchor 5 with concrete trigger phrases.

Trigger Term Quality

"query each other, coordinate cross-functional analysis, or run board meetings" gives good natural-term coverage, but common variations like "multi-agent" or "agent orchestration" appear only in the body's Keywords section, not the description. Matches anchor 4 (good coverage, a few natural terms missing); anchor 5 would require synonym-level comprehensiveness within the description itself.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"C-suite agent teams" carves a clear niche, but the trigger "run board meetings with multiple agent roles" could also fire a sibling board-meeting skill in the same suite. Matches anchor 4 (mostly distinct, minor overlap risk with closely related skills); not 5 because that overlap is plausible within this skill family.