Conciseness

The body is dense and operational — phase tables, a fixed contribution template, terse rules — with almost no explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Not 5 because the Keywords section duplicates trigger terms already in the frontmatter description and a few rules are restated (e.g., "No cross-pollination" appears in both the phase header and its body).

Actionability

Highly concrete for an instruction-only skill: exact file paths (`~/.claude/company-context.md`, `~/.claude/decisions/approved/`), a fixed agent order, per-role reasoning techniques, a copy-ready contribution format block, and enumerated Phase 4 output elements. Not 5 because two listed references (`templates/meeting-agenda.md`, `templates/meeting-minutes.md`) do not exist in the bundle and the Phase 4 output format delegates to `../agent-protocol/SKILL.md`, leaving minor gaps a reader would hit.

Workflow Clarity

The 6 phases are strictly sequenced with explicit checkpoints: "wait for founder confirmation" (Phase 1), self-verification before contributing (Phase 2), a critic checklist (Phase 3), "Full stop. Wait for the founder" with Approve/Modify/Reject/Ask options (Phase 5), and post-write confirmation to the founder (Phase 6). The Failure Mode Quick Reference table supplies feedback loops for error recovery (e.g., groupthink → re-run Phase 2 isolated), matching the top anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

The split is well-signaled in principle — facilitation detail lives in `references/meeting-facilitation.md` (which exists and is one level deep) and the protocol stays in SKILL.md — but scored against the actual bundle: `templates/meeting-agenda.md` and `templates/meeting-minutes.md` listed in References do not exist, and `../agent-protocol/SKILL.md` is an unverifiable external dependency. Not 4 because broken referenced paths are more than a minor organization gap; not 2 because structure and signaling of the existing reference are good.

Specificity

The description enumerates the full concrete action set: "Runs a structured 6-phase deliberation: context loading, independent C-suite contributions (isolated, no cross-pollination), critic analysis, synthesis, founder review, and decision extraction" — comprehensive, all phases named, no vague filler. Not 4 because coverage is complete rather than having minor gaps.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: what ("Multi-agent board meeting protocol... Runs a structured 6-phase deliberation") and when ("Use when the user invokes /cs:boardroom, calls a board meeting, or wants structured multi-perspective executive deliberation") with concrete trigger phrases. Matches the top anchor exactly; third-person voice throughout, no penalty.

Trigger Term Quality

Good natural coverage: "invokes /cs:boardroom, calls a board meeting, or wants structured multi-perspective executive deliberation on a strategic question" plus "board meeting", "C-suite", "strategic decisions". Not 5 because common colloquial variations (e.g., "run it by the board", "get the execs' take", "advisory board") are missing and "structured multi-perspective executive deliberation" is formal rather than user-natural phrasing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche (board-meeting deliberation protocol) with a distinct trigger ("/cs:boardroom", "calls a board meeting"); the slash-command trigger makes accidental activation by unrelated skills very unlikely. Minor overlap with generic "multi-agent" skills is not enough to drop to 4.