Conciseness

Mostly dense, load-bearing content: signal tables, exact question templates, a bounded digest spec ("≤ 200 words: analyzed, top 3 findings..."). Trim points exist — the "When to invoke" symptom table substantially duplicates the Signal table (both map to the same seven sub-skills), and the two long Step-5 grill-challenge examples could be one — but these are minor instances, matching anchor 4 rather than the 'some unnecessary explanation' of anchor 3.

Actionability

Concrete, executable guidance: a deterministic keyword→sub-skill signal table, a copy-paste question pattern ("Q1/1: [precise question...] / Recommended: [Lane X, because <signal-table rationale>] / (Confirm, or override?)"), four verbatim forcing questions, and a specified digest format. Anchor 5 is withheld because the mechanics of "forks context" / "run sub-skill in forked context" are never concretized (no command or invocation example), leaving a gap in how to actually execute the fork.

Workflow Clarity

A clear five-step sequence (explore → one forcing question → depth-first decision walk → forked invoke → digest) with real checkpoints: "route silently" when the workspace resolves the lane, "Confirm before chaining", "Never silently chain", "Never run a sub-skill until the lane-defining decision is locked". Not 5 because there is no error-recovery/feedback loop (e.g., what to do when a sub-skill returns a weak or conflicting digest) — the checkpoints govern sequencing, not failure handling.

Progressive Disclosure

Good internal sectioning with clear headers and tables, but scored against the actual bundle: no references/, scripts/, or assets/ exist, so the pointers "anchor every challenge in the SaaS pricing / deal desk canon (`references/`)" and "Path-B build pattern: `documentation/implementation/bizops-commercial-expansion-plan.md`" are dangling — they name files that are not in the bundle, so a reader cannot navigate to the canon the workflow depends on. The forcing-question library and canon citations are inlined that would otherwise live in those references, matching anchor 3 ('references present but not clearly signaled' / organization gaps) better than anchor 4.

Specificity

Names the domain comprehensively ("pricing models, deal review, discount approval, partnership economics, channel mix, commercial policy, RFP/RFI response, bookings forecast") and gives concrete mechanisms ("Forks context to route to one of seven Commercial sub-skills... and returns a digest"). Not a 5 because the skill's own concrete actions are limited to routing and digesting — the actual analytical actions are delegated to sub-skills, leaving a minor coverage gap.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: "Use when reviewing, approving, or designing commercial motion..." answers what/when, and "Triggers on 'review this deal', 'should we discount'..." provides concrete trigger phrases, plus the fork-and-digest behavior. Matches the anchor-5 example structure (what + when + concrete triggers) exactly; not 4 because the 'when' is already fully explicit, not just improvable.

Trigger Term Quality

Explicit natural trigger phrases — "review this deal", "should we discount", "pricing model", "partner economics", "RFP response", "bookings forecast", "channel mix" — are phrases a user would naturally say, and coverage spans all seven lanes with synonyms (RFP/RFI). Anti-drift check against anchor 4 ("a few natural terms missing") fails: no significant common variant is absent for this domain.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (per-deal commercial economics) with distinct triggers, and it explicitly fences off neighbors: "Distinct from business-growth (sales execution) and c-level-advisor/cro-advisor (strategic CRO judgment)". Minimal conflict risk; matches anchor 5.