Conciseness

The same guidance is stated three or more times across sections: "Don't use finalizers, leaving orphan resources" (failure list) restated as "Add finalizers" (principle 4) and "No finalizer — external resources orphan on deletion" (anti-patterns); "Update status, not spec" appears in the core principle, reconcile principle 3, the anti-patterns, and CRD design rule 2. The overlap exceeds 4's 'minor instances that could be trimmed', but the body teaches no generic Kubernetes concepts, keeping it above 2.

Actionability

Copy-paste-ready commands throughout: `python "$SKILL/scripts/crd_validator.py" --crd config/crd/myapp.yaml`, `kubebuilder init --domain example.com --repo github.com/org/myapp-operator`, and concrete fixes like "use `r.Status().Update(ctx, obj)` instead". Specific examples cover the common cases (bootstrap, audit, framework choice), matching the 5 anchor; 4 would imply executable gaps there are none.

Workflow Clarity

All three workflows are numbered and sequenced with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: Workflow 1 gates on "Fix every WARN before writing controller code" and "confirm L1"; Workflow 2 embeds triage rules "FAIL → block release; WARN → file an issue". This matches the 5 anchor (validation steps + error-recovery feedback), not 4's 'minor validation gaps'.

Progressive Disclosure

References are real, one level deep, and well signaled ("See `references/crd_design.md` for full detail", a References section listing all four, and matching scripts/assets files on disk). But the body claims a "/operator-audit — Run all 3 tools ... and produce a markdown report" slash command that has no backing file in the bundle, and the framework comparison table is inlined in the body while also living in `references/tooling_landscape.md`. These are minor organization gaps — 4's 'references mostly clear; minor organization gaps' — rather than the fully clean split of the 5 anchor.

Specificity

Names the domain and every concrete capability: "building a Kubernetes Operator — custom controllers that reconcile CRD state" plus "Ships CRD validator, reconcile-loop linter, and OperatorHub capability auditor (all stdlib Python), 4 references ..., and a /operator-audit slash command". This matches the 5 anchor (multiple specific concrete actions, comprehensive coverage); 4 would require a coverage gap, but tools, references, and command are each explicitly enumerated.

Completeness

"Use when building a Kubernetes Operator" explicitly answers when with concrete trigger phrases, and the ships-tools sentence explicitly answers what. Both halves are explicit and concrete, matching the 5 anchor; 4 would require the 'when' to be less explicit, which it is not.

Trigger Term Quality

"Triggers on 'build an operator', 'CRD design', 'reconcile loop', 'controller-runtime', 'kubebuilder', 'operator-sdk', 'metacontroller', 'KOPF', 'operator capability levels', or 'custom resource'" comprehensively covers the natural phrases a user would say, including all framework-name synonyms. Only trivial variants (e.g., 'reconciler') are absent, so this is the 5 anchor rather than 4.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"NOT a generic k8s skill — specifically the Operator pattern" draws an explicit boundary, and the trigger terms (framework names, reconcile loop, CRD design) occupy a distinct niche. Minimal conflict risk with adjacent k8s skills, matching the 5 anchor rather than 4's 'minor overlap risk'.