Conciseness

The body is lean: four short steps with executable commands, a scripts table, and one-line reference descriptions — no explanations of concepts Claude already knows. It falls short of 5 because of mild redundancy: the 4-hour cap and two-window batching rule each appear four times ("What this does", Step 2, the scripts table, and "Rules"), and the "Rules" section largely restates constraints already stated where they apply.

Actionability

The guidance itself is concrete and complete — copy-paste bash invocations with realistic argument values ("--task 'Write investor update:60' ... --budget 50"), documented exit codes ("OVER-BUDGET (exit 2)"), subcommands (log/status/streak), and stated refusal behaviors. It is not 5 because "fully executable, copy-paste ready" fails in practice: the three invoked scripts do not exist in the bundle, so every command errors on first run.

Workflow Clarity

The four steps (classify → block → log → shutdown) are clearly sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints and error-recovery feedback: "OVER-BUDGET (exit 2) means cut, batch, or delegate before any schedule is built" and the two planner refusals that "name what to defer" / "name what to drop — the day never silently extends". This matches the 5 anchor (explicit validation steps plus feedback loops for error recovery) and exceeds 4, whose defining gap ("minor validation gaps") is absent.

Progressive Disclosure

The in-body structure is well signaled — a references table, an assets list, and one-level-deep links like [references/deep_work_canon.md] with one-line descriptions — but the actual bundle is empty: no scripts/, references/, or assets/ directories exist, so all eight referenced paths are dead links. Scored against the actual bundle structure per the rubric guidelines, navigation to the detail material is impossible, fitting the 2 anchor (references effectively unusable); it is not 3 because the problem is not organization of the text but total absence of the referenced files.

Specificity

The description lists multiple specific concrete actions — "Classifies tasks deep vs shallow", "builds an energy-first time-blocked schedule that refuses deep demand past the 4-hour ceiling", "batches shallow work into at most two windows", "logs focus sessions against a weekly target" — with quantitative constraints included. It matches the 5 anchor (multiple specific concrete actions, comprehensive coverage) rather than 4, since the capability list covers the full workflow (classify, schedule, batch, log) with no gaps.

Completeness

Both questions are explicitly answered with concrete trigger phrases: "when" via "Use when someone wants to plan a deep work day, time-block their calendar or task list, ... or says '/deep-work' or '/time-block'" and "what" via the third-person capability list. This is the 5 anchor verbatim in structure; it is not 4 because the when-clause is fully explicit and enumerates specific triggers rather than a generic "Use when working with...".

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases a user would actually say are covered comprehensively with synonyms and variants: "plan a deep work day", "time-block their calendar or task list", "budget or cut shallow work", "protect focus hours", "track deep-work sessions and streaks", "run an end-of-day shutdown ritual", plus the explicit "/deep-work" and "/time-block" invocations. Both noun and verb forms of the domain terms appear; no common variation is obviously missing, fitting the 5 anchor over 4.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (personal attention budgeting and deep-work scheduling) is clearly framed and most triggers ("shallow work", "focus hours", "shutdown ritual", "/deep-work") are distinct, but "time-block their calendar or task list" overlaps with generic calendar/scheduling skills a user might reach for instead. Fits the 4 anchor (mostly distinct, minor overlap risk with closely related skills); not 5 because one real collision surface exists, not 3 because the overall framing is unmistakably deep-work-specific.