Conciseness

The body is lean — it skips explanations of what a rubric/grader is and goes straight to commands — but the 'Tools' section recap duplicates the script invocations already shown in the workflow. Matches 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed'; not a 5 because of that redundant recap, not a 3 because nothing is padded or condescending.

Actionability

Three full copy-paste bash commands with all flags and concrete example values (outcome_builder.py, verdict_reader.py, eval_scaffold.py) plus goal_state.py cover the common cases, matching the 'fully executable; copy-paste ready' anchor. Not a 4 because the commands are complete with realistic arguments rather than having gaps.

Workflow Clarity

Five clearly sequenced steps with explicit validation (verdict_reader gate) and feedback loops (SHARPEN/re-run, ESCALATE on no progress, ≤1-iteration flip), plus a Hard-rules checklist. Matches 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps'; the gap is that step 5 (Decide/SHIP) does not explicitly require the held-back eval to pass before shipping, which keeps it off the 5 anchor.

Progressive Disclosure

Well-sectioned (Workflow, Hard rules, Forcing-question library, Tools) with clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference links. Matches 'good structure; references mostly clear; minor organization gaps'; not a 5 because the referenced files (scripts/*.py and ../../references/*.md) are not present in the skill bundle, so the links do not resolve, and not a 3 because references are explicitly signaled and nothing that belongs in a separate file is inlined.

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions ('Define a CMA outcome', 'read each verdict', 'decide the next move (sharpen / re-run / promote to schedule)', 'run held-back eval cases in parallel') and names the exact tools (outcome_builder.py, verdict_reader.py, eval_scaffold.py), matching the comprehensive-coverage anchor. It is not a 4 because coverage is thorough rather than having only minor gaps; it uses third-person voice with no first/second person penalty.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both what (define outcome, read verdicts, decide next move, run held-back eval) and when ('Use when the user says ...') with concrete trigger phrases, matching the anchor. Not a 4 because the 'when' is fully explicit with quoted triggers rather than only somewhat specific.

Trigger Term Quality

Gives several natural phrases a user would actually say — 'grade my agent', 'make it pass the rubric', 'iterate until it's good', 'is it good enough' — plus the orchestrator route phase=grade-iterate, giving comprehensive natural-term coverage for this domain. Not a 4 because the trigger set is broad and on-point rather than missing common variations.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Carves a clear niche (Phase 3 grade→iterate loop) and explicitly states 'Distinct from stage-launch (first launch) and run-without-you (scheduling)' with a unique orchestrator route, minimizing overlap risk. Not a 4 because it both names a distinct niche and disambiguates the adjacent skills.