Conciseness

Dense, table-driven protocol content with almost no explanation of concepts Claude already knows — every section carries operational data (role-activation table, contribution format block, memory layout). Not a 5 because of minor trimmable redundancy: the '## Keywords' section duplicates trigger terms already in the description, and the intro line restates the frontmatter.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance throughout: exact file paths ('~/.claude/decisions/approved/YYYY-MM-DD-<slug>.md'), a copy-paste contribution format, a fixed agent order, and a role-activation table. Not a 5 because Phase 4's output format is delegated to an external file ('defined in ../agent-protocol/SKILL.md') and the 'Research (if needed)' step in Phase 2 has no defined executor or format, leaving minor gaps.

Workflow Clarity

Six phases clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints: Phase 1 step 4 'wait for founder confirmation', Phase 5 'Full stop. Wait for the founder.', and Phase 6 confirmation with logged counts. The Phase 3 critic checklist and the 'Failure Mode Quick Reference' table provide feedback loops and error recovery (e.g., 'Groupthink → Re-run Phase 2 isolated'). Matches the 5 anchor's explicit validation + recovery loops; the 4 anchor's 'minor validation gaps' does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The body itself is well-sectioned with clear headers and clearly signaled references ('templates/meeting-agenda.md — agenda format'), but scoring against the actual bundle structure reveals none of the referenced files exist — no templates/, references/, or scripts/ in the bundle — so navigation dead-ends, and Phase 4 depends on an external '../agent-protocol/SKILL.md'. Falls at the 3 anchor (references present but the structure doesn't hold up in practice); not 2 because the in-body structure is good and references are prominently signaled, not buried.

Specificity

Enumerates concrete actions — 'context loading, independent C-suite contributions (isolated, no cross-pollination), critic analysis, synthesis, founder review, and decision extraction' — naming the domain and several specific process actions. Not a 5 because the actions are phase names rather than a comprehensive statement of the skill's concrete capabilities (e.g., the decision records it produces are only implied); not a 3 because coverage goes well beyond 1-2 actions.

Completeness

Clearly answers 'what' ('Runs a structured 6-phase deliberation' with phases enumerated) AND 'when' with an explicit, concrete 'Use when the user invokes /cs:boardroom, calls a board meeting, or wants structured multi-perspective executive deliberation on a strategic question' clause. Matches the 5 anchor exactly; the 4 anchor's 'when could be more explicit' does not apply since triggers are specific. Third-person voice ('Runs') is correct.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural trigger phrases users would say: 'invokes /cs:boardroom, calls a board meeting, or wants structured multi-perspective executive deliberation on a strategic question'. Good coverage but a few natural variations are missing (e.g., 'get the executives' take', 'second opinion', 'advisory board'), so it falls between the 'good coverage' (4) and 'comprehensive synonyms' (5) anchors.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The '/cs:boardroom' command trigger and 'board meeting' framing give it a clear niche with minimal conflict risk, but 'multi-agent' and 'strategic decisions' are broad terms that could overlap with other deliberation or strategy skills. Mostly distinct with minor overlap risk — the 4 anchor — rather than the fully distinct 5.