Conciseness

The body is mostly lean (bullet triggers, numbered workflow, output template), but the Claude-only fallback is explained twice ('If only Claude is available, the command runs Claude-only with adversarial mode' in Models Used, then again verbatim in Graceful Degradation), and 'Why This Matters' plus lines like 'This is the safety net before irreversibility' add editorializing that could be trimmed. Fits anchor 3 — mostly efficient but could be tightened — rather than 4, because the duplicated degradation section is a clear cut.

Actionability

Gives the exact reviewer prompt prefix verbatim, the output file path pattern, a complete output template with vote-tally table, explicit GO/PAUSE/STOP decision rules, and a named 3-pass adversarial fallback — highly actionable for an instruction-only skill. Not 5 because the mechanics of invoking Codex/Gemini are only 'Probe environment for available model CLIs / API keys' with no probing commands, and the three adversarial system prompts ('Devil's advocate', 'Steelman') are named but not spelled out.

Workflow Clarity

A clear 6-step sequence (read → probe → per-model review → collect → reconcile → surface divergences) with the ≥2-model consensus rule acting as a decision checkpoint and explicit graceful degradation for the missing-model case. Not 5 because there is no error-recovery loop for a mid-run failure (e.g., a model call timing out or returning malformed output); not 3 because checkpoints (consensus threshold, CRITICAL concern escalation) are explicit.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle files exist, and the single-file body is well-sectioned (When to Run, Models Used, Workflow, Output Format, Routing, Related) with all content appropriately inline for a ~110-line skill. Not 5 because it exceeds the sub-50-line simple-skill case, the output template could arguably live in a reference file, and the 'Related' links point to relative paths outside the bundle (../../../c-level-advisor/...) that cannot be verified to resolve.

Specificity

Quotes like 'Multi-model consensus on a board memo or strategy brief' and 'Claude + Codex + Gemini cross-review with graceful degradation' name the domain plus several concrete actions. Not 5 because 'graceful degradation' is abstract and the reconciliation output (vote tally, divergent concerns) is not enumerated; well above 3's '1-2 concrete actions'.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what — 'Multi-model consensus on a board memo or strategy brief. Claude + Codex + Gemini cross-review with graceful degradation' — and when — 'Use when a high-stakes memo needs an independent sanity check before the boardroom — e.g. a bet-the-company pivot or fundraise terms.' This matches the anchor-5 pattern of a concrete what followed by a 'Use when...' clause with trigger examples.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases include 'board memo', 'strategy brief', 'independent sanity check', 'before the boardroom', 'bet-the-company pivot or fundraise terms' — terms a user would plausibly say. Not 5 because common synonyms like 'second opinion', 'peer review', or 'red-team' are absent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A clear niche (multi-model cross-review of high-stakes board memos) with distinct triggers ('board memo', 'strategy brief', 'bet-the-company pivot', 'fundraise terms', 'before the boardroom') that would not fire for generic memo-editing or code-review skills. Matches anchor 5's clear-niche, minimal-conflict profile.