Conciseness

The body is lean with no concept explanations or padding — every section ("Fetch evidence before deciding", "Do not invent screenshots, videos, logs...") adds non-obvious domain rules and assumes Claude's competence. The inline category list earns its place as a quick vocabulary while details live in the reference, so there is no over-explanation to trim.

Actionability

The guidance is fully concrete for an instruction-only MCP skill: six exact tool names in execution order ("agent_qa_get_run", "agent_qa_get_run_artifact", etc.), fixed category values, an explicit default-classification rule, redaction rules, and a copy-paste-ready JSON output example covering the common case. The only vague spot is the secondary fallback ("dashboard REST APIs or Agent QA CLI output" names no specific endpoint/command), which does not undermine the executable primary path.

Workflow Clarity

The 6-step sequence is clear (get run → fetch evidence → classify → compare runs → report → hand off) with an evidence-before-decision gate, but validation checkpoints (confidence must lower on missing evidence, MCP-unavailable fallback) are distributed across Evidence Rules and Limitations rather than embedded as explicit verify steps in the flow. This matches 'clear sequence with most checkpoints present; minor validation gaps' rather than the anchor-5 pattern of validation embedded as numbered steps with feedback loops.

Progressive Disclosure

The body is a well-organized overview (Overview, When to Use, Workflow, Categories, Evidence Rules, Example, Limitations) with a single clearly signaled, one-level-deep reference — "Use exactly one category from references/triage-categories.md" — which is a real file containing the detail table. Content is appropriately split (category names inline, use-when/first-checks detail external), with no nested references and easy navigation.

Specificity

"Triage failed Agent QA runs with MCP evidence, artifacts, logs, fixed failure categories, confidence, and actionable next steps" names the domain and several specific components (inputs: MCP evidence/artifacts/logs; outputs: categories/confidence/next steps), matching 'lists several specific actions; minor gaps'. It falls short of the 5 anchor because everything hangs off the single verb 'Triage' rather than multiple distinct concrete actions like the 'extract, fill, merge, convert' example.

Completeness

The 'what' is clear (triage failed runs using MCP evidence into fixed categories with confidence and next steps), but there is no 'Use when...' clause or equivalent explicit trigger guidance — the 'when' is only weakly implied by 'failed Agent QA runs'. Per the judging guideline this caps completeness at 3, exactly matching the anchor 'has a clear what but when is missing or only weakly implied'; it is above a 2 because the what is fully concrete, not vague.

Trigger Term Quality

Natural terms are present — "Triage", "failed", "Agent QA", "runs", "logs", "artifacts", "failure" — which a user investigating a failed run would plausibly say, matching 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing'. It misses common variations like "test failure", "investigate", "flaky", or "why did the run fail" that would push it to comprehensive coverage.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

"failed Agent QA runs" plus "MCP evidence" carves out a clear, mostly distinct niche, matching 'mostly distinct; minor overlap risk with closely related skills'. It is not a 5 because the repo has an adjacent sibling skill (agent-qa-debug-fix) and generic phrasing like 'fix this failed run' could plausibly trigger a general debugging skill instead.