Conciseness

Mostly lean: terse bullets with specific thresholds ("Standard cap: 12 months of fees", "Notice period (30 / 60 / 90 days)", "4-year, 1-year cliff") and no re-explanation of concepts Claude already knows. Not 5 because the intro contains motivational padding ("This is a lane gstack has zero of — and one where a single missed clause costs more than a year of engineering") that could be trimmed.

Actionability

Fully executable for an instruction-style skill: a copy-paste-ready output template with worked example rows ("uncapped IP indemnity | HIGH | Cap at fees paid, mutual"), two concrete python commands with file arguments, and specific numeric checkpoints for every question. Covers the common cases without gaps.

Workflow Clarity

Clear four-step sequence (read end to end → run the six questions → identify top-3 issues → apply the verdict) with the six questions serving as an explicit checklist and step 3 acting as a checkpoint. Not 5 because there is no explicit validation or feedback step (e.g., confirming the top-3 issues are reflected in the verdict); not 3 because the sequence and checkpoints are present and this is a review, not a destructive or batch operation, so the cap does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

Well-sectioned overview that appropriately pushes detail (contract scanner, term-sheet analyzer, three references) to a linked sibling skill, one level deep and clearly signaled under "Workflow Integration" and "Related". Not 5 because the relative paths (../../../c-level-advisor/...) do not resolve within this skill's bundle, making navigation fragile; not 3 because the structure and signaling are otherwise good.

Specificity

Names the GC domain and the when-clauses enumerate several concrete actions ("reviewing a term sheet before signing, redlining a customer MSA, checking IP assignment"), matching the anchor for several specific actions with minor gaps. Not 5 because "interrogation of ... employment-law surface" is abstract phrasing rather than a comprehensive list of concrete operations; not 3 because more than 1-2 concrete actions are given.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ("General Counsel interrogation of contracts, IP, regulatory, term sheets, and employment-law surface") and when, with concrete trigger phrases ("Use when reviewing a term sheet before signing, redlining a customer MSA, or checking IP assignment and regulatory exposure on a new product"). Matches the anchor-5 pattern; anchor 4's caveat that the "when" could be more explicit does not apply here.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural phrases a user would say are present: "term sheet", "signing", "redlining", "customer MSA", "IP assignment", "regulatory exposure". Not 5 because common variations like NDA, SOW, "contract review", or "legal review" are missing; not 3 because coverage is good rather than merely "some relevant keywords".

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear legal/GC niche with distinct triggers (term sheet, MSA redlining, IP assignment), so minimal confusion with unrelated skills. Not 5 because the body itself routes data-touching contracts to /cs:ciso-review, confirming minor overlap risk with closely related review skills.