Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes competence — every step carries only non-obvious operational detail ("Exit 4 is a stop", "labels only, never invent numeric scores", chmod-0600 redaction). Not a 5 because the Hard Rules section duplicates five points already stated in the steps (privacy, labels-only, exit 4, explicit yes, zero-suggestions), tokens that could be trimmed; well above the 3 anchor since there is no concept-teaching padding.

Actionability

Copy-paste ready commands cover every step: the mktemp scratch-dir setup, collect_sessions.py with --out, score_aggregator.py with --emit-template and full flag combinations, diff -u for proposals, render_report.py — plus concrete edge-case guidance (insufficient_evidence label, 1–5 top_findings, --days 90 fallback). Matches the fully-executable 5 anchor.

Workflow Clarity

Five clearly sequenced steps with explicit validation checkpoints and feedback loops: check sessions_sampled == 0 and stop, aggregator validates labels/reasons/suggestion citations, "Exit 4 is a stop: fix what it names and re-run", and a destructive-change gate (apply edits only on explicit per-skill yes). Matches the 5 anchor's validate→fix→retry pattern despite involving batch and file-modifying operations.

Progressive Disclosure

Structure and signaling are good — a scripts table with roles/exit codes and a one-level-deep references section with existing references/ and assets/ files — but the two files step 2 depends on entirely, [`scorers/efficiency.md`](scorers/efficiency.md) and [`scorers/code-quality.md`](scorers/code-quality.md), do not exist anywhere in the bundle, so navigation breaks for the core scoring rubrics. Not a 4: missing required bundle files is more than a minor organization gap; not a 2 since references are clearly signaled and no content is wrongly inlined.

Specificity

Lists several concrete third-person actions — "Collects local sessions with collect_sessions.py", "scores them against two rubrics", "gates edits with score_aggregator.py" — naming the actual scripts. Not a 5 because coverage has gaps: the report-rendering/summary step and the privacy-local-only contract are absent from the description.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both questions: "Use when the user wants their skills graded... asks which installed skills actually work, or wants evidence-backed skill edits" gives three concrete trigger conditions, and the "what" is stated as collect/score/gate actions. Clear match to the 5 anchor; the 4 anchor's caveat ("when could be more explicit") does not apply.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural trigger phrases users would plausibly say are present: "skills graded from real session history", "which installed skills actually work", "evidence-backed skill edits". Not a 5 because common synonyms like "audit my skills", "evaluate skills", or "skill quality" are missing; not a 3 since coverage goes well beyond one or two generic keywords.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The niche — grading installed skills from real session history — is distinct with specific triggers unlikely to fire for unrelated skills. Not a 5 because it could still overlap with closely related skill-evaluation/self-eval skills unless the session-history qualifier is picked up; the description itself (scoring only what is stated) doesn't delineate those neighbors.