Conciseness

The body is lean, assumes competence, and explains nothing Claude already knows, but the "Tools" section restates facts already given in the Workflow steps — "rubric required, cap 1..20" appears in step 1 and again in the outcome_builder bullet, and "held-back cases + parallel run plan" appears in step 4 and again in the eval_scaffold bullet. This fits the score-4 anchor (efficient, minor instances that could be trimmed); it is not score 5 because that duplicated summary means not every token earns its place, and not score 3 since there is no unnecessary explanation, only minor repetition.

Actionability

All three core commands are fully executable and copy-paste ready (verified: --sheet/--max-iterations/--out, --result, --concurrency flags all exist in the bundled scripts), and the decision table maps concrete statuses to moves. This is the score-4 anchor (mostly executable with minor gaps): "goal_state.py set --phase run-without-you" references a script not present in this bundle, and eval_scaffold.py's --sample path resolves to a nonexistent assets/example-build-sheet.json. It is not score 5 because of those unresolvable references, and not score 3 because nothing is pseudocode or missing key execution details.

Workflow Clarity

The 5-step sequence is clear with explicit validation checkpoints and a real feedback loop: "Read every verdict first", the loop invariant "Each iteration must move ≥1 rubric line fail→pass", and "With ≤1 iteration left it flips to 'make the single highest-value fix or escalate now'". This fits the score-4 anchor (clear sequence, most checkpoints present, minor gap); the gap is that the held-back eval stage has no failure branch — step 4 runs the cases and step 5 decides SHIP/promote, but what to do when a held-back case fails after the in-loop rubric passes is unstated, which keeps it below the score-5 anchor's 'feedback loops for error recovery' for the batch eval stage.

Progressive Disclosure

Good structure: an overview body (~74 lines) with clear sections, and scripts one level deep, all real, listed under "Tools", and referenced with executable commands. This fits the score-4 anchor (good structure, references mostly clear, minor organization gaps); the gap is that the two reference links — [../../references/loops-and-workflows.md] and [../../references/cma-primitives.md] — point two levels outside the skill bundle and no references/ directory exists here, so navigation to the cited material (also cited in the forcing-question library) cannot be verified. It is not score 3 because the references that do exist are clearly signaled and one level deep with nothing inlined that belongs in a separate file.

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions with comprehensive coverage: "Define a CMA outcome (a required markdown rubric graded by an isolated grader), read each verdict, decide the next move (sharpen / re-run / promote to schedule)... run held-back eval cases in parallel", plus tool-level specifics like "max_iterations clamped 1..20" and "capped at the 25-thread CMA ceiling". This matches the score-5 anchor (multiple specific concrete actions, comprehensive coverage); it is not score 4 because no meaningful capability gap remains — even numeric bounds and tool responsibilities are stated.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: what ("Define a CMA outcome... read each verdict, decide the next move... run held-back eval cases in parallel" with per-tool roles) and when ("Use when the user says 'grade my agent'... or when the orchestrator routes phase=grade-iterate"). This is the score-5 anchor verbatim — clear what AND when with concrete trigger phrases; not score 4 since the when-clause is fully explicit, not improvable.

Trigger Term Quality

Quoted natural user phrases cover the phrasing space comprehensively: "grade my agent", "make it pass the rubric", "iterate until it's good", "is it good enough", plus the routing trigger "phase=grade-iterate". This matches the score-5 anchor (comprehensive natural terms including synonyms — grade/rubric/iterate/good enough); score 4 would require identifiable missing natural variants, and none are apparent.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche ("Phase 3 of building a Claude Managed Agent — the bounded grade→iterate loop") with distinct triggers, and it explicitly names and distinguishes siblings: "Distinct from stage-launch (first launch) and run-without-you (scheduling)". Minimal conflict risk per the score-5 anchor; not score 4 because overlap risk is addressed head-on rather than merely minor.