Conciseness

The body is efficient: terse bulleted phases with no padding explaining concepts Claude already knows, matching 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed'. Not 5 because sections like 'Key Principles' and 'Expected Outcomes' are somewhat soft/generic and could be trimmed; not 3 because it is genuinely lean without unnecessary explanation.

Actionability

Concrete-ish guidance is present (specific offerings like 'Enemy heads (verified)', 'Strategic maps of desired territory', 'Obtain official diplomatic status') but it remains strategic/conceptual rather than operational, matching 'some concrete guidance but incomplete; missing key details'. Not 4 because the steps lack the operational detail needed to truly execute (how to verify heads, how to obtain status); not 2 because it lists specific, named items beyond minimal high-level hints.

Workflow Clarity

A clear five-phase numbered sequence is paired with a 'Security Adaptation' contingency section and a 'Verification' checklist, matching 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps'. Not 5 because verification is a one-time checklist rather than an explicit validate->fix->retry loop integrated into the phases; not 3 because checkpoints, contingencies, and a verification step are all present (the destructive-operation cap does not apply since validation exists).

Progressive Disclosure

A single self-contained file with well-organized, clearly headed sections and no nested references, matching 'good structure; most content appropriately placed; minor organization gaps'. Not 5 because at ~70 lines it sits just above the simple-skill threshold where inline organization alone would earn a 5, and the per-phase detail could in principle be split into referenced files; not 3 because structure and navigation are clear with no buried or nested references.

Specificity

Names the domain ('gain close access to a heavily guarded target through diplomatic channels') and lists several concrete capability areas ('intelligence gathering, asset acquisition, intermediary cultivation, and access execution'), matching the 'lists several specific actions; minor gaps' anchor. Not 5 because the actions are abstract category labels rather than fully concrete verbs; not 3 because four distinct specific actions are clearly enumerated.

Completeness

Answers both 'what' ('covers intelligence gathering, asset acquisition, intermediary cultivation, and access execution') and 'when' ('Use when planning to gain close access...'), matching 'has both what and when; when could be more explicit or specific'. Not 5 because the when is a single general trigger rather than multiple concrete trigger phrases; not 3 because when is explicitly present, not merely implied.

Trigger Term Quality

An explicit 'Use when planning to...' trigger with relevant keywords ('diplomatic channels', 'close access', 'guarded target') is present, but the phrasing is somewhat literary/specialized and lacks common synonyms or variations a user would naturally vary. Matches 'some relevant keywords but missing common variations'. Not 4 because natural everyday phrasing and synonym coverage are thin; not 2 because there is a clear explicit trigger with domain-relevant terms.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

A highly distinct, unusual niche (Jing Ke / Qin King / covert diplomatic access) with triggers unlikely to overlap with any other skill, matching 'clear niche with distinct triggers; minimal conflict risk'. Not 4 because it is more than 'mostly distinct' — the niche is essentially unique.