Conciseness

The body is mostly efficient but can be tightened: the 'When to invoke' symptom table substantially duplicates the 'Signal table' (both map user phrases to the same six sub-skills), 'never guess silently' is restated three times across the Fallback, Step 2, and Step 3 sections, and the illustrative digest/grill example in Step 5 is padded. This exceeds anchor 4's 'minor instances of over-explanation'.

Actionability

The routing is deterministic (keyword signal table, two-signal threshold, fallback rule) and the forcing-question pattern 'Q1/1: [precise question naming the two candidate lanes] / Recommended: [Lane X, because...]' is copy-paste ready, with three fully-worked grill examples. It falls short of anchor 5 only because the grill library covers 3 of 6 lanes and there is no worked digest example; per the instruction-only scoring note, the absence of code is not itself penalized.

Workflow Clarity

Steps 1-5 are clearly sequenced with explicit checkpoints ('Wait for the user's response. Then route.', 'Only after explicit user confirmation, run the second sub-skill') and an ambiguity fallback — better than anchor 3's implicit checkpoints. It misses anchor 5 because there is no error-recovery or validation guidance for the case where a sub-skill invocation fails or returns poor output.

Progressive Disclosure

Section structure and headers are good, but the body anchors its canon in a `references/` directory and cites `documentation/implementation/bizops-commercial-expansion-plan.md`, and neither exists in the bundle — dangling references an agent cannot follow, with no clearly-signaled one-level-deep reference structure in its place. This exceeds anchor 4's 'minor organization gaps' but the in-body structure is better than anchor 2's minimal/buried state.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions ('running, diagnosing, or designing internal business operations', 'Forks context to route to one of six BizOps sub-skills... and returns a digest') with comprehensive coverage of the domain via the six named sub-skills and sub-domains (process documentation, vendor SLAs, capacity planning, internal comms, SOP/runbook authoring, procurement spend). Anchor 4's 'minor gaps in coverage' does not apply — coverage is complete, matching anchor 5.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: 'Use when running, diagnosing, or designing internal business operations...' answers when, and 'Forks context to route to one of six BizOps sub-skills... and returns a digest' answers what, plus a dedicated 'Triggers on' clause with concrete trigger phrases — a clean match for anchor 5.

Trigger Term Quality

'Triggers on "BizOps review", "where's the bottleneck", "vendor health", "internal SOP", "all-hands deck", "spend categorization", "capacity for Q3", "process mapping"' provides good natural-phrase coverage across all six lanes, but anchor 5's 'comprehensive coverage including synonyms' is not met — natural variations like 'runbook', 'headcount', 'supplier renewal', and 'spend analysis' are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

An explicit differentiation clause — 'Distinct from business-growth (external sales motion) and c-level-advisor (strategic, not operational)' — plus a clearly scoped internal-operations niche with lane-specific triggers gives minimal conflict risk, matching anchor 5.