Conciseness

The body is dense and assumes competence — no tutorials on what llamacpp or docker are — with every section carrying operational value (the module-type prompt table, argument-order note, troubleshooting). Minor trimmable redundancy: the full 'harbor launch ... pi -p --no-tools --no-session' command is repeated nearly verbatim in 'The Command' and again twice in 'Running the Test' steps 2-3. Anchor 4 (efficient with minor instances that could be trimmed) fits better than 5.

Actionability

Every instruction is copy-paste executable: the 'harbor launch --workflow <module> --model ... pi -p --no-tools --no-session' command, the curl+python3 model-listing one-liner with the auth header and port derivation, 'docker logs harbor.boost --tail 20', and named default models. Placeholders are legitimate parameterization, not pseudocode, and common cases (unknown module type, indistinguishable output) are covered.

Workflow Clarity

The sequence is explicit and ends in validation: prerequisites with health-check gating, model selection, test run, control run on the same model/prompt, output comparison, then a five-item PASS/FAIL checklist. Feedback loops are present throughout — pick a better prompt, check Boost logs, restart Boost and retry, timeout/smaller-model fallback — matching the anchor 5 pattern of explicit validation plus error-recovery loops.

Progressive Disclosure

No bundle directories (references/, scripts/, assets/) exist and the body references no external files, so there is nothing mis-split or nested; scored against the actual single-file structure. At ~130 lines with well-organized sections (Prerequisites, Command, Prompt choice, Running, Checklist, Troubleshooting), everything is appropriately inlined for SKILL.md and navigation is trivial, satisfying the no-external-references exception.

Specificity

Phrases like 'Live-test a Harbor Boost module by sending a real prompt through llamacpp via pi and validating the output' name several concrete actions (live-test, send a real prompt, validate output) in third person, with only a minor gap — it never hints at the with/without-module comparison that defines the method. Not 3 because more than 1-2 actions are specifically named; not 5 because coverage is not comprehensive.

Completeness

Both halves are explicit: 'what' is 'Live-test a Harbor Boost module by sending a real prompt through llamacpp via pi and validating the output' and 'when' is the concrete 'Use when asked to test a boost module, verify a module works, ...' trigger list. This matches the anchor 5 example's structure exactly; nothing is merely implied.

Trigger Term Quality

'test a boost module, verify a module works, check module behavior, QA a boost module, or confirm a module's effect' gives good natural-phrase coverage (test/verify/check/QA/confirm). Not 5 because a few natural synonyms (e.g. 'smoke test', 'run/integration test a module', file-extension-style identifiers) are missing.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The 'what' anchors a clear niche (Harbor Boost, llamacpp, pi), but trigger phrases like 'verify a module works' and 'check module behavior' are generic enough to fire for non-Boost module verification. Mostly distinct with minor overlap risk, matching anchor 4 rather than 5.