Conciseness

The body is mostly dense, non-generic operational content (tier tables, Article 6(3) carve-outs, Module A/H routes, per-role obligation matrices), but it carries unnecessary weight: a ~40-term 'Keywords' section that is pure trigger stuffing duplicating the description's job, three 'This skill is NOT...' paragraphs that partly restate the description, and a 'Version/Status' footer duplicating frontmatter metadata. This fits anchor 3 ('Mostly efficient but includes some unnecessary explanation or could be tightened') rather than 2, since the padding is localized rather than pervasive.

Actionability

Concrete, runnable commands throughout: 'python scripts/ai_system_risk_classifier.py path/to/systems.json', planner and tracker invocations, and an Output Standards template with exact fields. The gap keeping this below 5: the input JSON schemas (systems.json, system.json, roles.json) are never defined — the user cannot prepare inputs without reading the scripts' source — and the workflow steps are comment-style directives ('# 1. Document system characteristics...') rather than fully specified procedures. Fits anchor 4 ('Mostly executable guidance; concrete code or commands with minor gaps').

Workflow Clarity

Four workflows each state a goal, sequenced numbered steps, and time budget; checkpoints exist (Workflow 1 cross-checks with GDPR DPIA and ISO 42001, Workflow 2 gates 'Sign EU declaration of conformity (Article 47) AFTER assessment passes', Workflow 3 is itself a pre-launch confirmation audit). Not 5: there are no re-validate-on-failure loops (e.g., what to do when classification is disputed or the classifier flags a prohibited practice mid-intake) and Workflow 4 lacks a completion check. Not 3: sequences are complete and checkpoints are explicit, not implicit. These are planning/audit workflows, not destructive or batch operations, so the validation cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure: a Quick Start, three responsibility sections each pointing to one-level-deep references ('See references/eu_ai_act_titles.md', 'See references/high_risk_systems_annex_iii.md', 'See references/gpai_obligations.md'), plus a dedicated References section annotating all four files. Not 5: the inline per-role obligation matrix duplicates content the referenced eu_ai_act_titles.md already covers ('Article-by-Article walkthrough with ... obligation breakdown'), and the Keywords/Adjacent Skills sections inline material that belongs elsewhere. Note: no references/ or scripts/ directories are present in this review bundle, so the referenced paths could not be verified to exist.

Specificity

The description enumerates three concrete decisions with full specifics: 'What's the risk tier of this AI system — prohibited (Art. 5), high-risk (Art. 6 + Annex III), limited-risk (Art. 50), or minimal-risk', 'Article 43 conformity assessment route (Module A internal control vs Module H full QMS + notified body) and what goes in the Annex IV technical documentation', and per-role obligations across 'provider / deployer / importer / distributor / authorized representative'. This matches the anchor 'Lists multiple specific concrete actions; comprehensive coverage' — coverage of the skill's three decisions is complete with Article-level precision, not merely 'several actions with minor gaps' (score 4).

Completeness

The 'what' is explicit (three numbered Article-level decisions) and the 'when' is explicit and concrete: 'Use during AI system intake review, when planning conformity assessment, or when scoping deployer obligations.' This directly matches anchor 5 ('Clearly and explicitly answers both what AND when with concrete trigger phrases'); score 4 would require the 'when' to be less specific, which it is not.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases are present: 'EU AI Act', 'Regulation (EU) 2024/1689', 'risk tier', 'conformity assessment', 'AI system intake review', 'scoping deployer obligations'. However common variations a user would plausibly say — 'high-risk AI', 'CE marking', 'AI regulation Europe', 'AI Act fines/penalties' — appear only in the body's Keywords section, not the description. This fits anchor 4 ('Good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing') better than 5's 'comprehensive coverage of natural terms including synonyms'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The description claims a clear niche ('operational compliance for compliance teams') and actively disambiguates: 'NOT executive AI strategy (see chief-ai-officer-advisor). NOT a legal substitute.' Explicit boundary-setting plus Article-specific triggers give minimal conflict risk, matching anchor 5 rather than 4's 'minor overlap risk with closely related skills'.