Conciseness

The body is imperative and free of concepts Claude already knows, but the core invariant is restated roughly six times ('You never possess a secret value', 'never enters the model's context window', 'You never see the value', 'exists only inside the broker process', 'never written to stdout/stderr, never logged, never returned'). Minor over-explanation that could be trimmed fits anchor 4 rather than 5.

Actionability

Both mechanisms get copy-paste-ready commands ('python3 scripts/keyring_broker.py request --name github_token --url ... --header "Authorization: Bearer {secret}"' and the exec example), but the MCP-server subsection is advisory only ('Prefer OAuth flows', 'Use ${input:...}/env indirection') with no executable example despite MCP being a stated use case. Mostly executable with minor gaps fits anchor 4.

Workflow Clarity

The primary-vs-fallback decision is clearly sequenced with rationale for each, and an error-recovery path exists ('If a secret is unavoidable and no keyring entry exists, ask the user to run keyring set ...'). Not a destructive/batch skill, so no cap applies; but there is no explicit verification step (e.g., how to confirm output was scrubbed or handle broker failure), fitting anchor 4 rather than 5.

Progressive Disclosure

Verified against the actual bundle: scripts/keyring_broker.py exists, is correctly pathed, is used in both examples, and is explicitly signaled in the Reference Implementation section, with implementation appropriately split out of the policy body. Minor gap: the broker's full CLI surface and MCP-config patterns are only inline in the ~100-line body with no separate reference doc, fitting anchor 4 rather than 5.

Specificity

The description lists multiple concrete actions — 'passes a credential *reference* (a name); a trusted non-LLM broker resolves it from the OS keyring, injects it into the request, scrubs the response, and returns only scrubbed output' — with comprehensive coverage of the mechanism in third-person voice. No meaningful coverage gaps, so it fits the top anchor rather than 4.

Completeness

Both questions are answered explicitly and concretely: what ('a trusted non-LLM broker resolves it from the OS keyring, injects it into the request, scrubs the response') and when ('Use whenever a task needs an API token, MCP token, password, or key'). This matches the top anchor exactly.

Trigger Term Quality

'Use whenever a task needs an API token, MCP token, password, or key' provides good natural keyword coverage (token, password, key, authenticate), but common variants users would actually say — 'API key', 'credentials', 'login' — are missing. Good coverage with a few natural terms absent fits anchor 4, not 5.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

The keyring-broker niche is clearly distinct from other skills, but the trigger 'whenever a task needs an API token, MCP token, password, or key' is broad and could fire on many ordinary API-usage tasks that overlap with provider-specific skills. Mostly distinct with minor overlap risk fits anchor 4 rather than 5.