The Steps and Verification sections are lean and assume competence, but 'Expected Outcomes' ('High motivation among troops', 'Encouraged defections') restates obvious goals and 'Decision Points' offers generic advice Claude could infer. Not score 3: there is inferable content that could be trimmed; not score 1: it is not verbose and does not explain basic concepts.

Concrete, copy-paste-ready guidance: exact reward amounts (5000 jin gold, 10,000 household fief), named ranks (大将 down to 千石), and an explicit multiplier ('Double standard military regulations'). As an instruction-only skill its guidance is fully actionable without code.

Five clearly sequenced steps followed by an explicit Verification checklist ('Confirm reward tiers...', 'Validate funding sources...', 'Ensure defection incentives are scaled...'). This is a non-destructive planning skill, so the missing validate-fix-retry loop does not cap the score.

A ~42-line single-purpose skill organized into Overview, Steps, Decision Points, Expected Outcomes, and Verification with no bundle files present. Per the simple-skills note, clean self-contained organization earns the top score without external references.

Lists multiple concrete actions — 'tiered rewards by enemy rank', 'defection incentives for surrendering units', and 'multiplier systems' — rather than vague language. It is comprehensive enough to clear the 'names multiple specific concrete actions' anchor, not merely naming a domain.

Explicitly answers both 'what' (tiered rewards, defection incentives, multiplier systems) and 'when' via the 'Use when designing...' trigger. Not score 2: the when is explicit, not merely implied.

The 'Use when designing military incentive structures to motivate troops and encourage enemy defections' clause gives natural phrasings a user would actually say. Not score 2: it covers the common variations (motivate troops, defections, rewards) rather than only a single keyword.

Targets a very specific counter-insurgency reward-design niche with distinct triggers, making overlap with other skills unlikely. Not score 2: it is not a generic 'works with documents'-style description that could collide.