Conciseness

Core sections (Configuration, Checkpoint Workflow, Agent Instructions) are tight, but the Philosophy block ("More than 90% of code should be written by agents..." quote, "Problem with Perpetual Autonomy" / "Solution" bullets) and the Metrics JSON schema pad the document without adding executable guidance. This is anchor 3 — mostly efficient with some unnecessary explanation that could be trimmed — rather than 4, since the padding spans multiple sections.

Actionability

Env-var settings, the signal file paths, and the summary markdown template are concrete, but the orchestrator block is pseudocode: `load_completed_tasks()`, `write_signal()`, `signal_exists()`, and `CHECKPOINT_FREQUENCY` are undefined and `completed_tasks` is compared as a variable, not a value. That matches anchor 3 (concrete guidance but incomplete; pseudocode instead of executable) rather than 4 (mostly executable with minor gaps).

Workflow Clarity

The sequence (work N tasks → pause → generate summary → write approval signal → wait → resume on detection) is clearly laid out with explicit checkpoints in both the diagram and numbered "On Checkpoint" steps, and the approval wait is itself a feedback loop. It misses anchor 5 because there is no error-recovery path — nothing specifies what happens when the user rejects or requests changes at a checkpoint.

Progressive Disclosure

The document is well-sectioned, but it is ~170 lines with content that could live in separate files (metrics schema, mode comparison table) inlined, and its only internal reference — `skills/production.md` — is a dangling path with no bundle file behind it, described vaguely as "HN production insights". This matches anchor 3 (some structure, references present but not clearly signaled) rather than 4 (most content appropriately placed, references mostly clear).

Specificity

"Pauses for human review every N tasks" names the domain (agent autonomy management) and one concrete action, but the parenthetical "(selective autonomy)" is abstract and no further concrete capabilities are listed. It matches anchor 3 (domain plus 1-2 concrete actions, not comprehensive) rather than 4, which requires several specific actions.

Completeness

The "what" is clear ("Pauses for human review every N tasks") and an explicit "Use when work needs short autonomous bursts with feedback instead of one long run" clause answers "when". It falls short of anchor 5 because the when-clause lacks concrete trigger phrases like "use when the user asks for checkpoints or periodic approval".

Trigger Term Quality

"human review" and "short autonomous bursts with feedback" are natural phrases, but common variations users would say — "checkpoint", "pause", "approval", "supervised" — are absent. Coverage sits at anchor 3 (some relevant keywords, missing common variations), not 4 (good coverage with only a few natural terms missing).

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The checkpoint/approval-signal niche is well differentiated from generic work skills, with only minor overlap risk against closely related supervision-mode skills. It is mostly distinct (anchor 4) rather than a clear niche with minimal conflict (anchor 5) because "selective autonomy" language could collide with sibling autonomy-mode skills.