Conciseness

Lean and efficient throughout — it assumes Claude's competence (never explains mktemp, diff -u, chmod 0600, or rubric judging) and every line is instruction, exit code, gate, or file pointer, matching the 5 anchor; there is no padded or over-explained section to trim, so not 4.

Actionability

Fully executable guidance: copy-paste commands with exact flags and paths (`python scripts/score_aggregator.py --inventory ... --emit-template > "$RUN/session_scores.json"`, `diff -u <current> <proposed>`), an exit-code table, and `--help/--output json/--sample`; no pseudocode or missing key details, matching the 5 anchor rather than 4's 'minor gaps'.

Workflow Clarity

Five clearly sequenced steps with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: step 1's "if `sessions_sampled` is 0 ... and stop", step 4's "**Exit 4 is a stop**: fix what it names and re-run; never hand-edit report.json", and the step-5 gate "apply only on an explicit yes, skill by skill" — the exact validate→fix→re-run, only-proceed-when-valid pattern of the 5 anchor, so the batch/destructive cap at 3 does not apply.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a clear overview with a dedicated references section listing eight one-level-deep, well-signaled paths (`scorers/efficiency.md`, `scorers/code-quality.md`, three `references/*.md`, three `assets/*.json`), each with a one-line purpose; no nesting or buried references, matching the 5 anchor.

Specificity

Lists multiple concrete actions covering the full pipeline — "scores recent local Claude Code / Codex sessions against efficiency and code-quality rubrics", "drafts skill changes gated by a deterministic aggregator", "renders one local shareable report" — with comprehensive coverage, matching the 5 anchor rather than 4's 'minor gaps'.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: "Use when the user wants..., asks..., or wants..." (when, with concrete trigger phrases) and the score→draft→aggregate→render pipeline (what), matching the 5 anchor's dual explicit what+when; the when-clause is as explicit as the anchor example, so not 4.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural user phrasings across three explicit trigger clauses ("agent setup graded from real conversation history", "which installed skills are actually working", "evidence-backed skill edits") plus tool names (Claude Code, Codex), giving synonym-level coverage; only trivially misses variants like "audit my skills", which the 4 anchor would require as 'a few natural terms missing'.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche (grading installed skills from real session evidence) is clear, but "wants evidence-backed skill edits" carries minor overlap risk with adjacent skill-authoring/self-eval skills that the description text itself does not disambiguate — that separation lives in frontmatter metadata — fitting the 4 anchor rather than 5's 'minimal conflict risk'.