Conciseness

The body is dense with project-specific rules and avoids explaining concepts Claude already knows, but it carries real redundancy: the "Quick Reference" table restates the Loop Prevention rules verbatim, and the "Keywords" section adds no operational value. Could be tightened to fit anchor 4, but the duplication places it at anchor 3.

Actionability

Fully concrete, copy-paste-ready guidance: exact invocation syntax ("[INVOKE:role|question]"), a filled-in example response (CFO burn-rate), and complete templates for responses, blocked calls, peer-verify, and critic-screen output. The instruction-only format is appropriate and covers common cases, matching anchor 5.

Workflow Clarity

Multi-step processes are clearly sequenced with explicit validation: the 4-step Internal Quality Loop with a SELF-VERIFY checklist, a peer-verification routing table, a stakes-based verification matrix, blocked-call handling, and a founder-feedback recovery loop. Checklists, feedback loops, and explicit checkpoints match anchor 5.

Progressive Disclosure

Section structure is good, but the sole external reference ("references/invocation-patterns.md — common cross-functional patterns with examples") is dangling — the file does not exist in the bundle. Additionally, the ~450-line body inlines large blocks (output-format templates, the quality loop) that belong in reference files. This matches anchor 3 (content that should be separate is inline; reference present but not usable); a broken reference is worse than the 'references mostly clear' of anchor 4.

Specificity

The description lists several specific capability areas ("Defines invocation syntax, loop prevention, isolation rules, and response formats") beyond just naming the domain. Not 5: these are rule-areas rather than concrete actions, and coverage has gaps (conflict resolution, broadcast, decision memory are unmentioned); not 3: more than 1-2 specific capabilities are named.

Completeness

Both what ("Defines invocation syntax, loop prevention, isolation rules, and response formats") and when ("Use when C-suite agents need to query each other, coordinate cross-functional analysis, or run board meetings with multiple agent roles") are explicit, with concrete multi-condition trigger phrases — matching the anchor-5 example structure. The 'when' clause is explicit and specific, not the weaker form of anchor 4.

Trigger Term Quality

"Use when C-suite agents need to query each other, coordinate cross-functional analysis, or run board meetings" provides good natural trigger phrases. Not 5: misses common synonyms users would say ("ask/invoke another agent", "agent-to-agent", "multi-agent coordination" as a spoken phrase).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"C-suite agent teams" and "board meetings with multiple agent roles" carve a distinct niche with low conflict risk against generic skills. Not 5: "run board meetings" overlaps with the sibling board-meeting skill implied by the bundle, a minor overlap with a closely related skill.