Conciseness

The body is largely efficient — operational facts Claude could not know (script names, flags, industry profiles, scoring weights, sibling-skill boundaries) with almost no generic-concept padding. Minor over-explanation could be trimmed: the forcing-question library repeats rationale already stated in Assumptions and Anti-patterns (e.g. the uncapped-indemnity override appears in both the sample note and question 4). This fits the 4 anchor (efficient, minor trimmable instances) rather than the 5 anchor (every token earns its place) and is well above the 3 anchor (unnecessary explanation).

Actionability

Guidance is fully executable: the Quick examples block gives copy-paste commands (`python3 scripts/deal_scorer.py --input my_deal.json --profile enterprise-software`, `--sample`, `--output {human,json}`), the Scripts table maps each tool to its profiles, and the workflow specifies the exact input files and how to override thresholds (`policy_thresholds` in the input JSON). This matches the 5 anchor (copy-paste ready commands covering common cases); the 4 anchor would require minor gaps in the runnable examples, which are absent.

Workflow Clarity

The 5-step workflow (intake → score → route → redline → assemble) is clearly sequenced, each step names its script and expected output, and the ordering rule in the forcing-question section ("Lock 1-4 before opening 5-7") plus the critical-signal override note provide decision checkpoints. It falls short of the 5 anchor because there is no explicit validation/feedback loop — e.g. what to do when intake JSON is incomplete or a script errors — though the deterministic stdlib scripts with --help and --sample soften that gap. It is above the 3 anchor since checkpoints (critical-signal override, explicit modifiers, assemble-only-after-scan) are present.

Progressive Disclosure

Structure is good and matches the actual bundle: all three references (deal_desk_canon.md, discount_economics.md, contract_landmines.md), all three scripts, and the assets/deal_intake_template.md are real files, clearly signaled one level deep from the References/Scripts/Workflow sections. It stops short of the 5 anchor because substantial content is inlined in SKILL.md that could live in a reference file — notably the ~30-line forcing-question library with per-question canon citations — making the overview less lean than the 5-anchor example.

Specificity

The description lists multiple specific concrete actions with a comprehensive list of named patterns — "deal review, discount approval routing, per-deal margin scoring, deal exception handling, MSA redline triage, contract landmine detection (uncapped indemnity, MFN, perpetual license-back, missing DPA), and named-approver chain assembly" — plus a concrete output form ("a numeric scorecard plus a routing recommendation to a named human"). This matches the 5 anchor (comprehensive concrete actions) and exceeds the 4 anchor, whose only gap would be missing coverage of the skill's functions.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: the "when" is concrete ("Use when reviewing a specific inbound deal before close — when sales has asked for a discount that exceeds AE authority, when the customer has redlined the MSA...") and the "what" is concrete ("Covers deal review, discount approval routing, per-deal margin scoring..."). This matches the 5 anchor's example structure (what + explicit 'Use when...' with concrete triggers) exactly; the 4 anchor requires a 'when' that could be more explicit, which does not apply here.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrases and synonyms are comprehensively covered: "reviewing a specific inbound deal before close", "discount that exceeds AE authority", "redlined the MSA", "margin after discount", "indemnity exposure", plus approver-role keywords (Sales Director, VP Sales, CFO, CRO, General Counsel). A user asking to review a deal, approve a discount, or triage an MSA redline would naturally use these terms; there are no missing common variations, matching the 5 anchor rather than the 4 anchor ("a few natural terms missing").

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche is mostly distinct — per-deal gating, discount-approval routing, and named-approver chains are unusual triggers — but "MSA redline triage" and "contract landmine detection" overlap with general legal/contract-review skills, so a 'customer redlined the MSA' request could plausibly trigger both. This fits the 4 anchor (minor overlap risk with closely related skills); it is not the 5 anchor because the redline/legal trigger terms are shared with contract-review skills.